Replies

If the FBI is working on crimes totally within a state, why bother having a state? Why bother having state police?

1st reason. If the FBI does not do it, it won't get done. Live boys or dead girls in the bed of one of these powerful state pols will not get the attention of the politicized State Police bureaucracy. The PA State Police for the most part hand out tickets, bust low level drug dealers and cigarette smugglers, answer calls way out in the boonies where there are no local cops and supply some extra muscle to back local police when needed. They are not high end crime busters by any stretch of the imagination.

2nd reason. There are most often Federal monies involved in these scams, making it a "Federal Case."

This is not a states rights issue. Everyone in the state knows that Fumo is dirty, but he isn't stupid either. It will take some serious resources away from local political pressure to finally nail the SOB.

There are a few parts of the above argument with which I disagree because they appear to contain a few logical fallacies. First it doesn't show that the FBI has Constitutional jurisdiction over this matter, which is what I presume is the point of your argument. (I do not think that the mere use of money that happens to be printed by the Federal Government is a convincing excuse to create federal jurisdiction in a matter. (IF someone embezzled money from the Feds that is different, but the mere use of money does not make something a Federal crime.) My question is what actually gave the FBI jurisdiction in this matter, because it is essential to answering the question of whether this is a states' rights issue or not.

Second, Your argument that if the FBI doesn't do it then no one will doesn't do it then no one will is a red herring. IF the FBI does it and it is unconstitutional, they are breaking the law. You set a dangerous precedent that does erode federalism, your natural rights, and the constitution itself if you allow the feds to have an omnipotent presence outside of their constitutional jurisdiction.

Third, the second sentence about live boys or dead girls in politicians beds is an appeal to pity. (e.g. Do it for the children) It doesn't address the argument on states rights vs federal power. If anyone's state government is that corrupt, I would suggest that they improve their own state government. If you don't have confidence in the state authorities, something must be done about it, they just need the authorization and the will to do it. Improving a nation begins locally and moves up the latter. Besides, do you think that the Politicians at the Federal level are anymore virtuous at the Federal level?