I always refer to this case on such, although it concerns interstate travel with tinted windows, it states that the ICC permits tinted windows state to state, as it affects IC if denied. It also discusses the Freedom to travel unfettered State to State.
Of course, as noted, that does not mean an arrest can never happen since I am sure police always say they know the law that applies.
That was a good citation Doreen in your post 40.
Off the cuff:
a) I think that would be fine (provided there is a rational basis for outlawing eyebrow plucking).
b) I think that would be fine. Conspiracy under the law is a separate evil. And I could see an argument that an agreement to commit an illegal act, even if the illegal act occurs in another state, is an evil that the State of West Virginia may prosecute as the illicit agreement occurs within its borders.
c) I don’t see the issue with that either. Where is the extra-jurisdictional element we are complaining about? Maybe I am missing something.
I think such a law would be struck down. Assuming, arguendo, that State A has a legitimate governmental interest that passes Second Amendment muster to prohibit its citizens from possessing automatic weapons, even for a second, within its own borders, the reasons for that would be the typical danger associated with those weapons.
A State A citizen legally firing automatic weapons in State B would pose no harm on State A because any danger is confined to State B.
FOPA explicitly protects you in that scenario, provided you’ve got it properly stored.
It was a not-very-funny riff on the fact that President Obama had a constitutional-scholar gig prior to his legislative and presidential gigs. I happen to be a fan of the guy, but this is GQ, so it was probably ill-considered in addition to not being very funny.
I was aware that we have a poster whose username is Barack Obama, but I was hoping that addressing “President Obama” would make it clear that I didn’t mean to address that poster but rather the public figure.
See? The more you explain a joke, the funnier it gets! 
well my parents couldn’t get married in Indiana or Michigan legally so they drove to Memphis Tenn and got married when dad was on leave … mom even took a pic of Graceland in 71 but Elvis was away that week… no one stopped them when they went back to Indiana
I don’t think the eyebrow law as I wrote it has an extra-jurisdictional element. I’m more interested in whether the state can prosecute conspiracy to commit an act in another state. The act of conspiracy itself takes place within the state, so they have jurisdiction, however the state does not have jurisdiction to criminalize the act being agreed to. What would you say if I amended the eyebrow law’s section b like this:
[LIST=a][li]…[/li][li]It shall be a misdemeanor to conspire within the state of West Virginia to pluck one’s eyebrows in another territory, without the recommendation of a doctor certified by the West Virginia medical board. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.[/LIST][/li]
I am of the opinion that West Virginia, in passing this hypothetical law, has overstepped its authority. West Virginia hasn’t necessarily exercised extrajudicial authority, since the act of conspiracy took place within the state of West Virginia; however, it goes against reason to criminalize conspiracy to commit a legal act by legal means.
~Max
The limitations of the metaphor make this a bit hard to express, but I’ll give it a shot. If the state asserting jurisdiction has said that it recognizes eyebrows as separate humans with full individual rights, and the US Supreme Court upholds that concept in related cases, then I think there would be little doubt that State A could criminalize in a variety of ways the taking of helpless eyebrows from State A to another state to have them plucked, even if it’s legal there.
Assuming the eyebrow brought suit, State B would appeal up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would probably admonish State B for violating the equal protection cause by allowing eyebrows to be plucked. The Supreme Court would probably demand State B starts protecting eyebrows like the humans they are, and if State B refuses it falls on the legislative branch to criminalize the practice nationwide, or the executive branch to force State B into line.
~Max
I think we’re just talking about criminal proceedings by State A for eyebrow plucking in State B where it is legal. I think lawsuits by eyebrows is outside the scope. But the criminalization could not happen if the US Supreme Court rules that everyone has a right to have their eyebrows plucked as a matter of personal privacy and autonomy, subject to certain reasonable limitations like ensuring hygienic conditions and requiring licences for professional eyebrow pluckers.
Incidentally, an often overlooked source of law might get a boost in these uncertain times: state constitutions. Take a look at the recent Kansas case interpreting its own constitution. And a state’s own court system has the last say on what its own constitution means, if they interpret it independently of the US Constitution. So if a state’s courts say that the state constitution does not allow the criminalization of eyebrow plucking, or does not allow the state government to reach out to punish eyebrow plucking occurring legally in another state, that is another limitation, and that issue could not be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
States pass laws that they enforce, and then sometimes go to the Supreme Court and are found unconstitutional. In direct response to the OP, the state could pass such a law, arrest you, and convict you, but the law could be overturned on appeal in federal court. I think. IANAL so I don’t know the legal mechanics. But there are many examples of this.
Again, I’m not a lawyer but this is how I imagine it would go down.
If State A brought suit, the eyebrow (deceased I assume) is probably named as a victim. The persons involved with plucking would be named as defendants. Unless State B abetted the plucking through official state action, State B would not be a party of the lawsuit.
State A might assert jurisdiction because the defendant was a citizen of State A, and thus bring suit in A-court. The defense will say the act was performed in State B, and that appeal over jurisdiction is sent to the district court. The district court almost certainly awards jurisdiction to State B because that is where the act of plucking was performed. In B-court, defense files a motion to dismiss because no law was violated. Prosecution files counter-suit against State B, claiming the laws of State B failed to protect eyebrow’s constitutional right, affirmed by the aforementioned Supreme Court case. Whatever B-court finds is appealed to district. The district court agrees and finds for prosecution. SCOTUS denies cert.
~Max
IANAL but it’s my understanding that a conspiracy requires two people? So unless the pregnant lady (or bushy-eyebrowed lady) tells her chauffeur that she needs his help to get across state lines and why, there’s no conspiracy.
I suspect the sex tourism law works because although it violates the spirit of how laws work, nobody is going to argue for the rights of pedophiles to travel unmolested. (sorry, couldn’t resist) Plus, how does that apply to, for example, someone under a court order not to reveal certain information - can they be prosecuted for violating a court restraint if they do it in another country or state? Or does a legal gag order expire at the border?
In fact, I thought I read some news article that a while ago the “travel abroad with intent” for sex tourism had been changed so the feds no longer had to prove intent, just the act.
Right, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy to go across the border yourself. But for example, making an appointment to pluck your eyebrows…
And feds have extrajurisdictional authority. With international treaties they can even enforce extrajurisdictional authority. States do not have this authority and attempts to enforce such will be shot down in court.
~Max
I think the conspiracy part is mainly there to stop people in State-A from banding together and hiring a bus to take them to State-B for the purpose of having their eyebrows plucked.
I am interested if people in State-B (say the beauticians in an effort to get more business) arrange for a bus to enter State-A to bring people across the border for some eyebrow plucking are they guilty of conspiracy?
If eyebrows are afforded full human rights and eyebrow-plucking is confirmed by the high court to be a deprivation of constitutional rights, the people of State-A and State-B are liable to the federal conspiracy against rights statute 18 U.S.C. 241 with a fine and up to ten years imprisonment.
State-A enters the picture if the agreement is made, in part, within the borders of State-A. For example two people could be standing on both sides of the border and committing a conspiracy according to the laws of State-A. State-A could then bring suit in A-court although jurisdiction will probably go to district court. If the person from State-B does this regularly they will have a hard time proving they don’t know or shouldn’t know the laws of State-A; on the other hand, the person from State-A has no excuse.
~Max
Indeed, New York has done that very thing to people whose planes made a unscheduled stop in their city, confiscating the guns, etc. Now, whether or not that arrest and confiscation would hold legal all the way up to SCOTUS, - IANAL.
So people offering group trips to Las Vegas to gamble can be considered a conspiracy to break the law in states where gambling is illegal?
For the federal statute, gambling does not deprive anyone of constitutional rights. So no.
For the hypothetical state statute criminalizing conspiracy to gamble outside of state borders, the state can try and sue. I predict the case will get tossed and that conspiracy to gamble statute overturned. See post [POST=21632910]#46[/POST].
The post you quoted about eyebrows was different, because in that thread of discussion the Supreme Court found eyebrows to be full human beings with constitutional rights and such.
~Max
If that happens then it would seem to me eyebrow plucking would be instantly illegal in the entire United States regardless of state law to the contrary.
Which is exactly why the district court admonishes State B, and why the legislative and executive branches have the respective honors of making it a federal crime or forcing State B to comply.
~Max