None of these are being proposed. Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution.
In other words, your comment is an example of the paranoia I referred to.
A statement like this requires being explicit about the country or set of countries in question, narrowing down the set of constitutions that would require amendments.
If the legal system of a country does not explicitly require merchants to accept cash (some places do, some don't - just like in some places a merchant may refuse a customer and in some they can't), it is technically possible to create a practically cashless environment without having to explicitly lock anything down explicitly, but merely by creating an incentive to not accept cash. There's barely any practical difference between no one (save a few die-hards acting on a principle) accepting cash because it's inconvenient to deal with (or simply unfashionable, hah) and actually blocking cash acceptance - the model is indeed different but outcome is ultimately the same.
For an imaginary extremely powerful and nefarious adversary the former model is even preferential, as it provides a plausible deniability. Whenever there's such and adversary with a will and power to do so is a separate question which I'll intentionally avoid.
Since we are talking about a digital dollar the country in question is the USA.
> Implementing all of these would require changing the constitution
This is naïve. Many countries, the US included, have variations of an emergency powers act, where the executive can get around the constitution in some ways. Even without that, though, you still can have things like Operation Choke Point [1], where the government merely makes suggestions/threats to private banks and payment processors to close the accounts associated with things they don’t like. So no, this has precedent. It’s not paranoia.
Cry me a river of unfounded paranoia.
It's not that I agree or disagree with your example - honestly, I've no idea, I haven't really tracked that story I presume you're talking about. What I suspect, though, is that ultimately, it's all a matter of trust. Which is a highly subjective matter.
What I wanted to say is that it might not exactly be a good idea, tone-wise, to call it a "paranoia", when it's just a matter of disagreement about subjective things.
Dr. King and Gandhi were also committing crimes by "impeding and infringing on the rights of other citizens"
I think this aught to make us consider the antidemocratic effects of poverty and inequality too.