Replies

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.

Get off your Libertarian high horse for a bit and smell the real world. There are precious few things that state and local governments do today that do not include direct grants from the Feds or "matching dollars", particularly these idiot "community development" dollars that Fumo and hundreds of other local hacks get sticky fingers over. Here's an example from todays news about how nepotism, backscratching and bribary works in Pennsylvania and every other damn state <

If you want to argue if the Feds should not be involved in giving OUR money to every hair brained scheme that state and local hacks dream up, I won't argue with you a bit. But the fact is they have been doing it for 100 years and Congresscritters (both Rs and Ds) across the country get elected for life because they can "bring home the bacon" from Washington. Wake up. It's not because they printed the damn money. It's because it's part of the $2.7 TRILLION that the Feds spend every year.

There is absolutely nothing "unconstitutional" about the FBI investigating fraud where the Federal tax dollars are involved. It's their damn job! Moreover, with your contention that as long as it "remains within a state" I suppose that it would be OK with you if the People's Republic of [pick a state] decided that Freepers should be locked in detention camps or be forced to pay higher taxes than politically correct citizens. Do you realize that in some states, you could get such a law through the corrupt legislatures? Who are you going to call for help then if not the Feds? The state can lock you up and the locals can put a bullet in your head a lot faster than the Feds can. And both state and local jurisdictions have proven to be far more corrupt than the Feds since this nation was founded. (

State and local governments are the absolutely biggest threats to individual freedom in this country and always have been. Be it the stupid smoking laws today, or inhumane slavery laws in the past, it's the state and locals that are the most corrupt and the most dangerous to individuals.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound condescending. I think that you misunderstood the meaning of what I said. I said the use of money in a transaction by which I meant the simple use of money does not create federal jurisdiction. In the next sentence I make the exception for the types of cases which you refer when I mention that Federal monies which have been embezzled or misused are under federal jurisdiction.

You also mention that local governments are more of a threat to liberty than the federal government. It is true that local governments are closer to the people, but as I see it a threat is still a threat. The local governments may be more of a threat to your liberty owing to its proximity to you, but that doesn't change the fact that the Federal government still could pose a threat to your liberty. The Constitution was designed as we all know with checks and balances in order to prevent a concentration of power in the hands of one unjust group or man. We often think of the three branches as having the checks in the system, but we often overlook the fact that the states are also a pivotal player in the system of checks and balances. The states are now losing all of their power to the federal government. Most of the checks that they have had on the national government have been removed, by constitutional amendments such as the 17th amendment which took their voice out of the Senate. The point is that the states and the federal government are supposed to fight over power and jurisdiction because they check each other, but the problem is now that the states can't have few ways left to check the federal government so it goes unrestrained. In order to stop the out of control system which we now have, I mean to say that it is necessary to refortify the states against federal incursion. As long as the states and the federal government are struggling with each other for power, the people will be more safe than if one single group can dominate and tyrannize the other. I think the best system is not one that has an all powerful state or an all powerful federal government, but rather the system in which the federal government and all of the state governments are all checking each other.