Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 of The Constitution of the United States declares in part, that “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;”. The mandate for gold and silver coin applies only to the States of the Union. There is no similar constitutional restriction on the currencies that might be used in Washington DC or the territories since they are not “States” of the Union.
I’ve therefore concluded that the use of Federal Reserve Notes would be at least restricted and probably prohibited within the States of the Union, but would be quite legal within any territory of the United States or Washington DC. This distinction between the constitutional venues of currencies is the cornerstone for my contention that “Texas,” “TX” and even “STATE OF TEXAS” do not signify the State of the Union whose proper name is “The State of Texas,” but instead signify a territory. I.e., it’s lawful to use Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) in the “territory” of TX, but it would be unlawful to use FRNs within “The State of Texas”.
Thus, it might be that the mere use of FRNs would constitute evidence that you had “voluntarily” left your State of the Union to transact business in a fictional territory. Within the State you would have many rights, but no currency. Within the territory you’d have ample access to a fiat currency, but little or no real rights.