I concurr in part (part 1) and dissent in part (part 2).
I don't mean to question you, but you're concurring as to the facts (part I) dissenting to the court's striking down of parts of the act (part II) and no opinion on the court leaving other section untouched (part III)?
My use of 'part' was referring to these statements, which appear to be divided between a part 1 and a part 2:
(1) Sections 1(b) and 1(c) of the Freedom of Currency Amendment violate the Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 prohibition against Region-issued currency.
(2) No constitutional or statutory provision requires us to find section 1(a) of the Freedom of Currency Amendment invalid or preempted, so we therefore hold it a valid application of Regional police power.
