I would ask all readers of this thread to note that some very simple, but fundamental questions that I’ve asked on this thread remain unanswered by those who have unfortunately bought the “states’ rights trump unalienable rights” lie.
A Republic, If You Can Keep ItStatement of HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Last year the House made a serious error by trying to federalize the crime of killing a fetus occurring in an act of violence. The stated goal was to emphasize that the fetus deserved legal protection under the law. And indeed it should and does-at the state level. Federalizing any act of violence is unconstitutional; essentially all violent acts should be dealt with by the states.
I think that many posters here are frustrated by the incremental power grabs by the federal government and want them rolled back. They feel that most all laws are the jurisdiction of the states. Essentially, the federal government does not belong in law enforcement unless there is a very good reason.
Lets talk about arson since it is a less contentious issue than abortion. Do you think that the federal govt has any business whatsover investigating and prosecuting arson? I do not, but the federal govt apparently does. They have spent millions of our tax dollars establishing bad precedent that allows them to prosecute any arson that they want.
“Today, the Court denied review in two criminal appeals that raised Commerce Clause questions related to the decisions last week and today. Both were appeals from convictions under the Federal arson law, which makes it a crime to engage in arson of “any building used in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.”
In one case, Ramey v. United States, No. 94-5755, a West Virginia man appealed his conviction for burning a trailer to express his disapproval of the interracial couple who lived there. The Government argued successfully in the lower courts that the trailer’s receipt of electricity through an interstate power grid was sufficient to establish its connection to interstate commerce.
The second case, Moore v. United States, No. 94-642, was an arson-for-hire appeal from South Carolina. The lower courts upheld the Federal prosecution on the ground that the house that was burned was connected to interstate gas and telephone lines. “
Essentially, they can prosecute any arson crime that they want. They can also apply federal death penalty sentencing even though the death penalty is not legal in the state.
Does this sound like the intent of the Constitution’s framers?
I would ask you to re-learn history.
Abortion has been going on since the Founding. Where was the Constitutional Amendment or SCOTUS ruling then? In the 1800s?
Give it up EV. How's Keyes' fundraising going? :-)