4 ms·

Uh I don't think that's true? They just don't do it by policy usually. Remember those federal CA prosecutions for (state-legal) medical marijuana? And the fe

Uh I don't think that's true? They just don't do it by policy usually. Remember those federal CA prosecutions for (state-legal) medical marijuana? And the federal prosecution of the police who assaulted Rodney King _after_ their state level acquittal?

arcticbull 5y ago
To my knowledge, that's possible because the Feds have jurisdiction over inter-state commerce. If they can connect the crime to any kind of cross-state-lines activity they can claim the jurisdiction.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Has there been any case where the commerce clause has let the federal government down? It's a hole large enough to drive a country through.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Yes that is unfortunate. It appears that President Roosevelt forced the current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause by threatening to pack the Supreme Court with political cronies if the justices ruled against his New Deal legislation. Hopefully some day the Supreme Court will have the courage to overturn those precedents and limit federal government power to what the Constitution's authors originally intended.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > It appears that President Roosevelt forced the current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause by threatening to pack the Supreme Court with political cronies if the justices ruled against his New Deal legislation. Based on what? The expansive interpretation is usually traced to Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court packing scheme was introduced and ultimately fizzled in 1937; the one case while it was an active issue that is sometimes credited to the threat of the court packing scheme was one weighing state police powers (in setting a minimum wage) against the Constitutional guarantee against states restricting freedom to contract, which didn't involve the Commerce Clause at all. (And even that case the decisive shift in position appears to have actually occurred before the court packing threat, in any case.)
nradov 5y ago
No you've got it wrong. There is a federal law against possession and sale of marijuana; it's legality at the state level is irrelevant at the federal level. The police officers who beat Rodney King were convicted in federal court of civil rights violations; they weren't charged with assault. There is no general federal law against murder. There are some specific federal laws against murder on federal property, or against federal employees, or committing a terrorist act, or a few other very limited situations. https://uscode.house.gov/ https://uscode.house.gov/
- DarylZero 5y ago
  > There is no general federal law against murder. Oh. I thought there was. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
  - wl 5y ago
    > Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States [...] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

arcticbull 5y ago

To my knowledge, that's possible because the Feds have jurisdiction over inter-state commerce. If they can connect the crime to any kind of cross-state-lines activity they can claim the jurisdiction.

bcrosby95 5y ago
Has there been any case where the commerce clause has let the federal government down? It's a hole large enough to drive a country through.
- nradov 5y ago
  Yes that is unfortunate. It appears that President Roosevelt forced the current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause by threatening to pack the Supreme Court with political cronies if the justices ruled against his New Deal legislation. Hopefully some day the Supreme Court will have the courage to overturn those precedents and limit federal government power to what the Constitution's authors originally intended.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > It appears that President Roosevelt forced the current expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause by threatening to pack the Supreme Court with political cronies if the justices ruled against his New Deal legislation. Based on what? The expansive interpretation is usually traced to Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court packing scheme was introduced and ultimately fizzled in 1937; the one case while it was an active issue that is sometimes credited to the threat of the court packing scheme was one weighing state police powers (in setting a minimum wage) against the Constitutional guarantee against states restricting freedom to contract, which didn't involve the Commerce Clause at all. (And even that case the decisive shift in position appears to have actually occurred before the court packing threat, in any case.)

nradov 5y ago

No you've got it wrong. There is a federal law against possession and sale of marijuana; it's legality at the state level is irrelevant at the federal level. The police officers who beat Rodney King were convicted in federal court of civil rights violations; they weren't charged with assault. There is no general federal law against murder. There are some specific federal laws against murder on federal property, or against federal employees, or committing a terrorist act, or a few other very limited situations. https://uscode.house.gov/ https://uscode.house.gov/

DarylZero 5y ago
> There is no general federal law against murder. Oh. I thought there was. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111
- wl 5y ago
  > Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States [...] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7