I know a federal complaint has been filed against Blago, and it should not be news to any Illinois resident that he is a scumbucket, but my wife and I were discussing the propriety of charging him under federal law.
It has been a long time since I took Constitutional Law, but I believe the majority of federal criminal statutes are authorized under the Commerce and federal spending clauses. All other police powes are specifically reserved to the states.
So would someone please explain to me exactly how whatever Blago has been accused of affects interstate commerce or federal spending - or whether some other authority exists allowing federal prosecution of what impresses me as a state matter?
I believe the federal statute involved is based on a state’s receipt of federal funds. If that is sufficient basis, then it seems just about anything could be considered a federal offense. And I’m not entirely sure that is a good thing.
This horse left the barn years ago. If the Feds can tell you that growing marijuana on your own property for your own use is “interstate commerce” then the idea that their powers are few and enumerated is silly, and it has been for some time.
Actually, that is what spurred our conversation (continuing my quest to establish that my wife and I have the MOST BORING conversations EVER!) I was going to link it - but was lazy.
Well, it involved the potential appointment. Not sure what federal crime was committed as yet, and Congress could always refuse to seat someone. Aren’t the states allotted considerable leeway in how they select/replace their senators?
That was essentially my position. ISTR that some of the civil rights laws had pretty tenuous relations to interstate commerce. And it seems a lot of the justification for legislation under the Commerce Clause depends on whether the legis has a popular or desireable goal, rather than the credibility of the link to commerce. But, I believe they always try to establish a tie-in.
Well, I’m not entirely certain that the intepretation of the Commerce Clause is set in stone, or can only trend in one direction. IIRC, courts initially interpreted the Commerce Clause as conferring quite limited authority. Yes, for much of the last century, the trend has been in the other direction. But I sense that may have reversed somewhat over the past decade or two, with court decisions since the early 90s pretty consistently recognizing more limited fed authority under the Commerce Clause.
I disagree. In the 90s, you had two decisions. One concerned possessing a gun on school grounds, and the other concerning domestic violence.
Even the most hardcore federal government activists were brought to quivering tears trying to explain how outlawing gun possession at school or violence between married couples involved regulating commerce between states or foreign nations.
SCOTUS, in 5-4 decisions nonetheless, struck down these laws. And even then, all they said, was basically, “Come on guys, at least put in the law that you are regulating interstate commerce!”
And they did. They passed the Gun Free School Zones Act again with a statement about how school violence hurts commerce. Thirteen and one half years later it still stands.
I was going to link it - but was lazy.