[SJackson]

Ah, yes. The old "if you're not in favor of a federal law against something, then you must be in favor of people doing it". Nice.

Well, you vote against it, yes you're against it. Not to the Ron Paul cult, that's what cults are about. Aren't they.

Nice, well yes, the abortionists think it rocks!

There's something in the Constitution about this, I know, fill me in, along with Ron Pauls vocal objections to the Mann act.

[tacticalogic]

There's something in the Constitution about this, I know,

Well, then under what enumerated power do you think the federal government would enact such a measure?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The Mann Act is an interesting thing. You take something like prostitution which one hopes that states would have the ability to prosecute, you add a little detail like where the prostitute ended up, and all of a sudden you need the FBI.

If a prostitute is transported from Nevada to California is it not possible for the states of Nevada and California to work together to see that the prostitute and the associated pimps and johns are brought to justice? Do we really need the FBI to get in on this?

The Supreme Court just upheld a state judges ability to use his common sense judgment to determine the sentence of a convicted felon while being guided by, but not bound to federal sentencing guidelines.

I realize that it was a bunch of us nut job conservatives in the 70's and 80's, in response to a bunch of nut job liberal judges handing out ridiculously lenient sentences, that led to all of these federal guidelines. But can we admit our mistake? Can we look at what has happened and ask the simple question: what the heck is the federal goverment doing spending federal tax dollars on state and local crime enforcement? Why are states grabbing their ankles and bending over to let the feds tell them what to do?

Does the term "states rights" have any meaning anymore? Are we now down to only eight bill of rights?