15 states wanna secede

[alant]

Originally Posted by ce

Alant is just confused due to the conditions of his pre-nuptual agreement with his wife. She threatens to exile him to Texas if he doesn't obey her every capricious whim.

We'll never know why he married a vengeful harpy driven by fits of jealous rage. He could have done so much better, he is a Colonel, after all.

Perhaps the e-mails the FBI has monitored will reveal more.

I married a Saint. She doesn't issue threats or fly into rages, jealous or otherwise.

It would be better if you talked about something or someone you have knowledge of.

[NEWFNL1A1]

At 47 now....

[4 brigada]

At 47 now....

Come on 50, hey wait a minute......

[alant]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Stripping citizenship: meh.

As to "exile", I would be interested to know where anybody gets the legal right to throw somebody out of the land of his birth for not recognizing an artificial entity that claims a right to tax, beat, kill or cage him for an ever increasing array of reasons.

Exile implies they would retain citizenship and be able to re-enter the coutry at a future date. Greek city states sometimes used exile to punish their citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile

My preference is that secessionists have a capital L tattooed on their foreheads, for sore loser, as a quick means of identification.

[alant]

Originally Posted by 4 brigada

Come on 50, hey wait a minute......

Um, you guys know this is as valid as a Fox election poll, right? A state legislature or statewide ballot would need to be involved, not a bunch of unverified names on an internet list.

[NEWFNL1A1]

Originally Posted by alant

My preference is that secessionists have a capital L tattooed on their foreheads, for sore loser, as a quick means of identification.

I had a similar idea for Liberals......

[NEWFNL1A1]

Originally Posted by alant

Um, you guys know this is as valid as a Fox election poll, right?

With all the voter fraud reports, that Fox poll is lookin' more valid all the time.

BTW, most of us are aware that this is merely a statement buddy...any real action has to originate with state legislatures.

[V guy]

We need to be more like Greece, from now on.

Secession is just some sort of passing condition, like the clap........comes from hanging around with the wrong people.

Plenty of dumb people to fleece in the aftermath of the chaos.

Darwin was absolutely right and it showed in the last elections suicide pact.

[NEWFNL1A1]

White House ‘secede’ petitions reach 675,000 signatures, 50-state participation

Less than a week after a New Orleans suburbanite petitioned the White House to allow Louisiana to secede from the United States, petitions from seven states have collected enough signatures to trigger a promised review from the Obama administration.

By 6:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, more than 675,000 digital signatures appeared on 69 separate secession petitions covering all 50 states, according to a Daily Caller analysis of requests lodged with the White House’s “We the People” online petition system.

A petition from Vermont, where talk of secession is a regular feature of political life, was the final entry.

Petitions from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas residents have accrued at least 25,000 signatures, the number the Obama administration says it will reward with a staff review of online proposals.

(RELATED: Will Texas secede? Petition triggers White House review)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/wi...-house-review/

The Texas petition leads all others by a wide margin. Shortly before 9:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, it had attracted 94,700 signatures. But a spokesperson for Gov. Rick Perry said Tuesday afternoon that he does not support the idea of his state striking out on its own.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/14/wh...participation/

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by alant

I married a Saint.

Romney would approve.

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by W.E.G.

I've been trying to secede from the internet.

Problem is, I keep getting annexed.

Yep, one last post and then anext and anext and.......does it never end

[gunner30]

Online petitions aren't worth the paper they're printed on

[JeffJ]

Originally Posted by gunner30

Online petitions aren't worth the paper they're printed on

This one is a complete joke, only thing you will do is get yourself on the white house crap list...good way to get audited by the IRS etc.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

Exile implies they would retain citizenship and be able to re-enter the coutry at a future date. Greek city states sometimes used exile to punish their citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile

My preference is that secessionists have a capital L tattooed on their foreheads, for sore loser, as a quick means of identification.

I can't help noticing that you didn't have an answer for my question.

[Pre-Ban]

Goodbye suckers!

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by Pre-Ban

Goodbye suckers!

You have a wonderful economy of words...

I look forward to your next syllable.

[308bolt]

Maybe he'll treat us to an adjective?

[alant]

Originally Posted by shlomo

I can't help noticing that you didn't have an answer for my question.

I learned a while ago to ignore your questions.

1. You don't accept my answers.

2. It's not my job to answer your questions.

3. It appeared to be more of a comment to the list than a question of me in particular. You can accept my general comment as a reply or as an answer, it matters not to me.

4. You didn't use a question mark.

Unless "exile" is ruled a cruel and unusual punishment it's a legal punishment, and cheaper than throwing someone in the slammer.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

I learned a while ago to ignore your questions.

1. You don't accept my answers.

2. It's not my job to answer your questions.

3. It appeared to be more of a comment to the list than a question of me in particular. You can accept my general comment as a reply or as an answer, it matters not to me.

4. You didn't use a question mark.

Unless "exile" is ruled a cruel and unusual punishment it's a legal punishment, and cheaper than throwing someone in the slammer.

So I was right--you don't have an answer to the question, with or without a question mark. Just as I thought.

[alant]

Originally Posted by shlomo

So I was right--you don't have an answer to the question, with or without a question mark. Just as I thought.

You won't take "I don't have to provide you with an answer" as an answer, and you won't take an answer when it is staring you in the face.

YES, I have an answer, and NO, I don't have to provide it to you. If you think about it, and read the US Constitution, you will know the answer. There is a "hint" in my response (the last sentence).

Here's another hint. Which part of our federal government passes laws?

[Munster30]

Instead of talking secession, perhaps a move back to Federalism:

So what's a solution? Let the central government do the things that only central governments can do -- national defense, regulation of trade to keep the provinces from engaging in economic warfare with one another, protection of basic civil rights -- and then let the provinces go their own way in most other issues. Don't like the way things are run where you are? Move to a province that's more to your taste. Meanwhile, approaches that work in individual provinces can, after some experimentation, be adopted by the central government, thus lowering the risk of adopting untested policies at the national level. You get the benefits of secession without seceding.

Sound good? It should. It's called federalism, and it's the approach chosen by the United States when it adopted the Constitution in 1789. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...anada/1712241/

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

You won't take "I don't have to provide you with an answer" as an answer, and you won't take an answer when it is staring you in the face.

YES, I have an answer, and NO, I don't have to provide it to you. If you think about it, and read the US Constitution, you will know the answer. There is a "hint" in my response (the last sentence).

Here's another hint. Which part of our federal government passes laws?

The question still stands. Where do they get the right?

Or are you one of those people who thinks that the scope and power of the federal legislature is unlimited?

There are one or two more issues involved in this, but so far we haven't made much progress on the easy stuff.

[alant]

Originally Posted by shlomo

The question still stands. Where do they get the right?

Or are you one of those people who thinks that the scope and power of the federal legislature is unlimited?

There are one or two more issues involved in this, but so far we haven't made much progress on the easy stuff.

You are pathetic. Here's a trail of bread crumbs.

Exile means kicked out of the country for a certain amount of time - lots cheaper than putting someone up in the crossbar motel and paying for their medical coverage while they are there.

1. Would exile be deemed "cruel or unusual punishment" per the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution, as determined by SCOTUS?

2. Does Congress pass laws in accordance with the US Constitution?

3. Is allowing a court to sentence you to 10 years of exile all that different than allowing a court to sentence you to 10 years in prison?

4. Are you one of those people who think the federal legislature cannot pass laws determining what punishments may be assigned? If you are I suggest you carefully read the text of the 13th Amendment posted below.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

You are pathetic. Here's a trail of bread crumbs.

Exile means kicked out of the country for a certain amount of time - lots cheaper than putting someone up in the crossbar motel and paying for their medical coverage while they are there.

1. Would exile be deemed "cruel or unusual punishment" per the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution, as determined by SCOTUS?

2. Does Congress pass laws in accordance with the US Constitution?

3. Is allowing a court to sentence you to 10 years of exile all that different than allowing a court to sentence you to 10 years in prison?

4. Are you one of those people who think the federal legislature cannot pass laws determining what punishments may be assigned? If you are I suggest you carefully read the text of the 13th Amendment posted below.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

And STILL none of that dodging answers either the original question, nor the next one about whether the federal legislature's powers are limited or unlimited.

For your convenience, here is the original question, slightly rephrased so that it contains a question mark:

Where does anybody get the legal right to throw somebody out of the land of his birth for not recognizing an artificial entity that claims a right to tax, beat, kill or cage him for an ever increasing array of reasons?

Since you are such a rock-ribbed supporter of the Constitution, please show me where in that document the fedgov is given any power to punish crimes other than treason, counterfeiting, and crimes against the law of nations?

[357ross]

What seems to get lost in the shuffle is that the fed-gov is an invention of the states, and serves at the pleasure of the states. This concept has been lost on our leaders. Without states, fed-gov can't exist. Seccesion is, right now anyway, only symbolic. It should seve as a wakeup call to the prez and congress. If our prez were looking after America's interests, he would take heed of this, problem is, he thinks like a king or dictator. It'll be a fun show to watch, for a while. If it continues, Obummer will get ugly about it.

[bakerjw]

There are 2 choices. Sovereignty or secession. Anything else is surrender.

[L Haney]

Check my reasoning please. Exile as mentioned here is a punishment. After due process. We have minted a newly guilty criminal. Then we send him away. To where, exactly? Most first world countries have rules disallowing criminals to take up residence as immigrants.

Until very recently in this county we had 'exile lite'. Banishment. Ordered by county judges in some few cases and carried out by the Sheriff.

They would take the miscreant to the county line and let them out of the car. Then, I assume, point sternly in the direction the car was pointed.

After a while, the surrounding counties had enough of this 'problem export' business and brought it to a screeching halt.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by L Haney

Check my reasoning please. Exile as mentioned here is a punishment. After due process. We have minted a newly guilty criminal. The we send him away. To where, exactly? Most first world countries have rules disallowing criminals to take up residence as immigrants.

Until very recently in this county we had 'exile lite'. Banishment. Ordered by county judges in some few cases and carried out by the Sheriff.

They would take the miscreant to the county line and let them out of the car. Then, I assume, point sternly in the direction the car was pointed.

After a while, the surrounding counties had enough of this 'problem export' business and brought it to a screeching halt.

Dammit, Haney--I said there were other issues to deal with, and this is one of 'em.

Very bright of you to jump the gun on me, but not very sporting.

I'll live, I guess.

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by shlomo

... but not very sporting.

I'll live, I guess.

'Scuse the phuck outta' me. How the hell was my dumb ass supposed to know where you were going with this?

I's just patting myself on the back with the quandary of 'exile to where' thing.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by L Haney

'Scuse the phuck outta' me. How the hell was my dumb ass supposed to know where you were going with this?

I's just patting myself on the back with the quandary of 'exile to where' thing.

You velly smaht guy.

Another issue is state citzenship. US citizens are generally citizens of the USA, and also of the state in which they reside. Other than DC residents and a few others domiciled in federal territories and enclaves, where does the fedgov get off telling a citizen of, say, Virginia that he has to get the hell outta the state for not admiring the federal government?

Might as well discuss it with you, since all I got outta A-lant so far is three bitchy posts. I reckon he's outta cranberry juice.

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by shlomo

You velly smaht guy.
where does the fedgov get off telling a citzen of, say, Virginia that he has to get the hell outta the state for not admiring the federal government?

Squatters rights. They been doing so much wrong, for such a long time, it has become accepted.

There has been a major dearth of "Phuck You" letters from the several governors offices such that the nincompoops in Washington think they can run internal state affairs.

This is actually a far bigger problem than the budget.
(that noise you just heard was the top of Gates head blowing off)

[alant]

Originally Posted by shlomo

And STILL none of that dodging answers either the original question, nor the next one about whether the federal legislature's powers are limited or unlimited.

For your convenience, here is the original question, slightly rephrased so that it contains a question mark:

Where does anybody get the legal right to throw somebody out of the land of his birth for not recognizing an artificial entity that claims a right to tax, beat, kill or cage him for an ever increasing array of reasons?

Since you are such a rock-ribbed supporter of the Constitution, please show me where in that document the fedgov is given any power to punish crimes other than treason, counterfeiting, and crimes against the law of nations?

Sigh, where to begin. Did you take civics or government in high school? Did you attend high school? If so, have you since had a lobotomy?

Where does the fed gov get the authority to do anything? The Constitution!

1. You left out one of the responsibilities of Congress - "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas"

2. You left out another - "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" among which resides the UCMJ.

3. Yet another which you failed to mention - "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States" - i.e. Congress legislates for the District of Columbia. Surely this means Congress has the power to punish crimes committed in said district.

4. Then there is this little piece - "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Sticking with your rather limited list of crimes let us take one - counterfeiting. Now suppose Congress specified that 20 years exile was the punishment for counterfeiting. Would that be, within your definition, a punishment that meets constitutional muster? If not why?


Isn't it the Republicans who are constantly harping about making it a FEDERAL crime to burn the US flag? Where is THAT in the Constitution - oh, they want to make it an amendment, well, by all means.

Perhaps you missed something along the way. Show me where I advocated exiling those who signed the silly internet secession "petitions". I quoted a Huffington Post article that mentioned this, but I never said I AGREED with exile for signing meaningless internet lists, only that "Congress could address what to do with secessionist traitors".

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by alant

Where does the fed gov get the authority to do anything? The Constitution!

Then you have just admitted 90% of our federal government is operating outside of charter. Hence, it need not be recognized in those areas.

A complicit court has made rulings of the most tenuous and vile sort that have made legitimate challenges to their cancerous spread moot. Here was the failing.

Politicians and government entities ALWAYS seek to increase their power and reach. I won't get into the base human emotions that drive this. We set up a Judiciary to counter this, depending on men of education and experience to hold these base desires in check. They failed miserably.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

Sigh, where to begin. Did you take civics or government in high school? Did you attend high school? If so, have you since had a lobotomy?

Where does the fed gov get the authority to do anything? The Constitution!

1. You left out one of the responsibilities of Congress - "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas"

2. You left out another - "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" among which resides the UCMJ.

3. Yet another which you failed to mention - "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States" - i.e. Congress legislates for the District of Columbia. Surely this means Congress has the power to punish crimes committed in said district.

4. Then there is this little piece - "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Sticking with your rather limited list of crimes let us take one - counterfeiting. Now suppose Congress specified that 20 years exile was the punishment for counterfeiting. Would that be, within your definition, a punishment that meets constitutional muster? If not why?


Isn't it the Republicans who are constantly harping about making it a FEDERAL crime to burn the US flag? Where is THAT in the Constitution - oh, they want to make it an amendment, well, by all means.

Perhaps you missed something along the way. Show me where I advocated exiling those who signed the silly internet secession "petitions". I quoted a Huffington Post article that mentioned this, but I never said I AGREED with exile for signing meaningless internet lists, only that "Congress could address what to do with secessionist traitors".

If I were you, I wouldn't be so smug. In order:

1. Piracies and felonies on the high seas are offenses against the Law of Nations. Fail.

2. The power to regulate the military forces has nothing to do with punishment of ordinary citizens. Fail.

3. I mentioned federal districts, territories and enclaves as the exception. Fail.

4. Show me the foregoing enumerated powers that relate to our discussion of banishment of those who consider the feds illegitimate. Impending fail.

Now, let's take your argument for exiling counterfeiters. To where? I might buy the power to bar them from federal property, but where do you send exiles? They are born in this country and have no other. What are ya gonna do? Put 'em in a boat, and set 'em adrift outside the 12 mile limit?

Finally, it already is a crime to burn the federal flag--on federal property, not in the states. You'd know that if you read something other than the crap on DU. That is also a hint about the limits of territorial jurisdiction of the congress.

[L Haney]

" You'd know that if you read something other than the crap on DU."

What does Ducks Unlimited have to do with kicking Alant to the curb based on willful ignorance?

[alant]

Originally Posted by L Haney

Then you have just admitted 90% of our federal government is operating outside of charter. Hence, it need not be recognized in those areas.

Do so at your own risk dude, your own risk.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

Perhaps you missed something along the way. Show me where I advocated exiling those who signed the silly internet secession "petitions". I quoted a Huffington Post article that mentioned this, but I never said I AGREED with exile for signing meaningless internet lists, only that "Congress could address what to do with secessionist traitors".

As a separate item, I never said you agreed with it, although I presumed that from your boldface notation, and subsequent observation:

"Petitions to strip citizenship of individuals signing onto petitions to secede and exile them have also been submitted. "

"Congress could address what to do with secessionist traitors"

I was merely asking the rhetorical question about where ANYONE gets the power to throw a man out of the land of his birth over a political dispute. Evidently, that's too abstract for you.


It is worth mentioning that the Constitution defines treason as only one thing--levying war against them, adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. (my bold)

Note the bold words. It makes it pretty clear that the treason being discussed is against the several states, and not the federal government, which would have read "against it, giving aid and comfort to its enemies."

A very good case can be made that the federal government, in its relentless efforts to expand its powers and destroy the independence of the several states has been doing just that--committing treason.

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by alant

Do so at your own risk dude, your own risk.

I do so every single day. Being a citizen has responsibilities, you know? I don't shirk mine.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

Do so at your own risk dude, your own risk.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Any chance of your citing one of the "foregoing powers" which would allow the fed to punish as a crime the signing of a secession petition?

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by alant

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper.."

There it is! Those two words, "necessary" and "proper". You've exactly identified the failings of the whole shebang. The concept embodied in those two words has been tossed like a used condom. When it should have resulted in the burning of several edifices after the doors had been locked with the occupants inside.

We missed the chance. We're suffering the consequences.

[alant]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. You may not like this, but it is how things work. You may not like it that the sun rises in the east either, but such is life.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Criminal+Law
In a Report of the Federal Judiciary issued at the end of 1998, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice william h. rehnquist criticized the congressional movement toward federalizing the criminal justice system. "Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes," Rehnquist instructed, "no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be." Rehnquist noted the tremendous toll that federalization of crime was exacting on the federal judiciary, and he decried the damage it was doing to the concept of federalism: "The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts not only is taxing the judiciary's resources and affecting its budget needs, but it also threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system." According to Rehnquist, the problem was political in nature; senators and representatives in Congress were using the act of lawmaking to win or keep their seats: "The pressure in Congress to appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime needs to be balanced with an inquiry into whether states are doing an adequate job in this particular area and, ultimately, whether we want most of our legal relationships decided at the national rather than local level."

In his 1998 report, Rehnquist cited a report on federal courts issued by the 1995 Judicial Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference recommended that federal courts be used for only five types of cases: 1) offenses against the government or its inherent interests; 2) criminal activity with substantial multi-state or international aspects; 3) criminal activity involving complex commercial or institutional enterprises most effectively prosecuted under federal resources or expertise; 4) serious high level or widespread state or local government corruption; and 5) criminal cases raising highly sensitive local issues. "Although Congress need not follow the recommendations of the Judicial Conference," Rehnquist wrote, "this Long-Range Plan is based not simply on the preference of federal judges, but on the traditional principle of federalism that has guided the country throughout its existence."

Concern over the federalization trend spread during the late 1990s. The Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association (ABA) organized a task force—the Task Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law—to look into the matter. In 1998, the task force issued a report in which it criticized the trend. Victor S. (Torry) Johnson, a representative of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) on the task force, declared in Prosecutor, "By trying to fight street crime through federal legislation, Congress misleads the public into believing that a national response will be effective and that the problem will be solved with federal intervention." Congress then fails to provide enough federal funding to prosecute all the new laws, creating a situation in which the efforts of local law enforcement "are undermined by the unrealistic expectations created by Congress' well-publicized enactments."

In his 1999 article for Corrections Today, James A. Gondles Jr., executive director of the American Correctional Association, lamented the introduction of low-level, local criminals into the federal system. According to Gondles, mixing such prisoners with big-time federal criminals blurs the jurisdictional line and makes it "more difficult for those at the state and local levels to do their jobs."

Not everyone is troubled by the federalization of criminal law enforcement. Proponents of federal criminal laws argue that they are necessary in an increasingly mobile society. Crime tends to span more than one state and even local crime can have effects which cross state boundaries. In his article for the Hastings Law Journal, Rory K. Little, a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law, defended the increase in federal crimes as a protection against the inability of states to catch and prosecute all criminals. If the quality of justice is better in the federal courts, Little opines, "then problems of crime cannot be ignored federally while state criminal justice systems slowly sink and justice fails."

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in March 1999 constituted an approval of increased federal authority over crime. In United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 119 S.Ct. 1239, 143 L.Ed.2d 388 (1999), Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno kidnapped a drug associate and took him from Texas to New Jersey, then to New York, and finally to Maryland. Rodriguez-Moreno was charged with, among other crimes, kidnapping and using and carrying a firearm in relation to a kidnapping, an act that violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1). Section 924(c)(1) makes it a crime to use or carry a firearm during, and in relation to, any crime of violence. Rodriguez-Moreno was tried in New Jersey on the charges, even though he did not have a gun in New Jersey.

Rodriguez-Moreno, who did not want to be tried in New Jersey, argued that the statute did not allow the federal government to prosecute him for the § 924 crime in New Jersey because he did not commit the crime in that state. The Court rejected the argument, holding that because the crime of violence (kidnapping) continued through several states, prosecution was proper in any district where the crime of violence was committed, even if the firearm was used or carried in only one state. The decision made it easier for federal prosecutors to pick and choose the venues for their cases.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. You may not like this, but it is how things work. You may not like it that the sun rises in the east either, but such is life.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...m/Criminal+Law
In a Report of the Federal Judiciary issued at the end of 1998, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice william h. rehnquist criticized the congressional movement toward federalizing the criminal justice system. "Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes," Rehnquist instructed, "no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be." Rehnquist noted the tremendous toll that federalization of crime was exacting on the federal judiciary, and he decried the damage it was doing to the concept of federalism: "The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts not only is taxing the judiciary's resources and affecting its budget needs, but it also threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system." According to Rehnquist, the problem was political in nature; senators and representatives in Congress were using the act of lawmaking to win or keep their seats: "The pressure in Congress to appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime needs to be balanced with an inquiry into whether states are doing an adequate job in this particular area and, ultimately, whether we want most of our legal relationships decided at the national rather than local level."

In his 1998 report, Rehnquist cited a report on federal courts issued by the 1995 Judicial Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference recommended that federal courts be used for only five types of cases: 1) offenses against the government or its inherent interests; 2) criminal activity with substantial multi-state or international aspects; 3) criminal activity involving complex commercial or institutional enterprises most effectively prosecuted under federal resources or expertise; 4) serious high level or widespread state or local government corruption; and 5) criminal cases raising highly sensitive local issues. "Although Congress need not follow the recommendations of the Judicial Conference," Rehnquist wrote, "this Long-Range Plan is based not simply on the preference of federal judges, but on the traditional principle of federalism that has guided the country throughout its existence."

Concern over the federalization trend spread during the late 1990s. The Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association (ABA) organized a task force—the Task Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law—to look into the matter. In 1998, the task force issued a report in which it criticized the trend. Victor S. (Torry) Johnson, a representative of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) on the task force, declared in Prosecutor, "By trying to fight street crime through federal legislation, Congress misleads the public into believing that a national response will be effective and that the problem will be solved with federal intervention." Congress then fails to provide enough federal funding to prosecute all the new laws, creating a situation in which the efforts of local law enforcement "are undermined by the unrealistic expectations created by Congress' well-publicized enactments."

In his 1999 article for Corrections Today, James A. Gondles Jr., executive director of the American Correctional Association, lamented the introduction of low-level, local criminals into the federal system. According to Gondles, mixing such prisoners with big-time federal criminals blurs the jurisdictional line and makes it "more difficult for those at the state and local levels to do their jobs."

Not everyone is troubled by the federalization of criminal law enforcement. Proponents of federal criminal laws argue that they are necessary in an increasingly mobile society. Crime tends to span more than one state and even local crime can have effects which cross state boundaries. In his article for the Hastings Law Journal, Rory K. Little, a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law, defended the increase in federal crimes as a protection against the inability of states to catch and prosecute all criminals. If the quality of justice is better in the federal courts, Little opines, "then problems of crime cannot be ignored federally while state criminal justice systems slowly sink and justice fails."

A U.S. Supreme Court decision in March 1999 constituted an approval of increased federal authority over crime. In United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 119 S.Ct. 1239, 143 L.Ed.2d 388 (1999), Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno kidnapped a drug associate and took him from Texas to New Jersey, then to New York, and finally to Maryland. Rodriguez-Moreno was charged with, among other crimes, kidnapping and using and carrying a firearm in relation to a kidnapping, an act that violated 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1). Section 924(c)(1) makes it a crime to use or carry a firearm during, and in relation to, any crime of violence. Rodriguez-Moreno was tried in New Jersey on the charges, even though he did not have a gun in New Jersey.

Rodriguez-Moreno, who did not want to be tried in New Jersey, argued that the statute did not allow the federal government to prosecute him for the § 924 crime in New Jersey because he did not commit the crime in that state. The Court rejected the argument, holding that because the crime of violence (kidnapping) continued through several states, prosecution was proper in any district where the crime of violence was committed, even if the firearm was used or carried in only one state. The decision made it easier for federal prosecutors to pick and choose the venues for their cases.

Another complete non sequitur to the discussion at hand. A lazy-assed cut-and-paste of a page of bullshit, instead of answering a simple question or two.

Imagine my surprise.

[L Haney]

"Not everyone is troubled by the federalization of criminal law enforcement."

I am one WHO IS. They need to phuck off in a most serious manner. Get the hell out of law enforcement that is properly reserved for the states. I don't give a good goddamn if it's 'convenient', if those climbers see it as ' more effective', their arguments are odious to the concept of what a federal government can do. It was NEVER contemplated in the structure of the fed that they would stick their noses into these matters.

Acts of individuals against other individuals? And you want a FEDERAL structure to have jurisdiction over this? Hell no. States may extradite to other jurisdictions for the most applicable jeopardy to be applied. It remains in their purview.

At least until the illegitimate, over reaching, unchartered actions of the feds interfere.

Is this really that complex for you to grasp?

[alant]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Another complete non sequitur to the discussion at hand. A lazy-assed cut-and-paste of a page of bullshit, instead of answering a simple question or two.

Imagine my surprise.

You don't accept my answers when you don't agree with them, and you don't accept it when I decline to answer. Gee, what a surprise.

Your questions have been answered, or not, whatever.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by alant

You don't accept my answers when you don't agree with them, and you don't accept it when I decline to answer. Gee, what a surprise.

Your questions have been answered, or not, whatever.

I don't accept answers that aren't answers. If I ask you what time it is, and you say, "the sun is shining", that may be an answer in YOUR mind, but it's not an answer to the question.

And I certainly DO accept it when you don't answer. In fact, I've come to expect it.

[D P Six]

There will never be a sucessful 'secession', but what should we call the coming collapse and breakup?

[tdb59]

Originally Posted by D P Six

There will never be a sucessful 'secession', but what should we call the coming collapse and breakup?

D P Six, are you possibly channeling the Spirit of Henry Clay ?


" But, I must take occasion to say that, in my opinion, there is no right on the part of one or more of the States to secede from the Union. War and the dissolution of the Union are identical and inseparable. There can be no dissolution of the Union except by consent or by war. "


Copied without permission of the originator.




.

[JasonB]

Originally Posted by tdb59

D P Six, are you possibly channeling the Spirit of Henry Clay ?


" But, I must take occasion to say that, in my opinion, there is no right on the part of one or more of the States to secede from the Union. War and the dissolution of the Union are identical and inseparable. There can be no dissolution of the Union except by consent or by war. "


Copied without permission of the originator.




.

Henry Clay was in favor of the everything that has lead to the current fiscal situation. Federalist became Whig became Republican.

[alant]

Originally Posted by D P Six

There will never be a sucessful 'secession', but what should we call the coming collapse and breakup?

The paranoid fantasy of the sore loser right wing?

[alant]

Originally Posted by shlomo

I don't accept answers that aren't answers. If I ask you what time it is, and you say, "the sun is shining", that may be an answer in YOUR mind, but it's not an answer to the question.

And I certainly DO accept it when you don't answer. In fact, I've come to expect it.

Shlomo, denying the US Constitution and other realities since 1787!