Indeed. I would also submit that interstate matters must be a federal matter too, though admittedly, the way that occurred (largely) through the commerce clause is quite a stretch- Still, when crime is committed across state lines, there has to be a set of laws to deal with that, no?
If a racketeer can legally exist in one state and cause crimes in surrounding states (wherein his actions are illegal by each state's law respectively) who has the authority for interdiction and prosecution in that case?
If a racketeer can legally exist in one state and cause crimes in surrounding states (wherein his actions are illegal by each state's law respectively) who has the authority for interdiction and prosecution in that case?
I believe that state where the crime occurred can go after them, even if they haven't violated any laws in the state where they are located. I've read of several cases of the AG here in Missouri going after bolier room scam operations being run from Florida, without needing any federal invervention to do so.
The problem with most Commerce Clause regulation is that there really isn't any objective of regulating commerce - ie there is no irregularity in the state of interstate commerce they are attempting to remedy. "Regulating commerce" is used as a tactic to regulate or control things the were not empowered or intended to control.