[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Jed S. Baer]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 17:30:08 GMT
<djperkins at americanisp.net> wrote:

> > But, we have a habit of trying to pass legislation anytime there's
> > a new societal problem that gets a bunch of people worked up.
> 
> The band-aid approach to legislation.  Seriously, aren't many laws an
> attempt to address a
> problem?

The problem is that little regard is given as to whether a legislative
remedy is appropriate, and at what level of jurisdiction it rightly
belongs. For example, if every state has a mechanism for prosecuting
murder, why have any federal statutes for such? Prosecute the crime at the
lowest level having jurisdiction and means. Thus, if a city has no laws
regarding theft, but the county does, we can assume (and I think there are
common languages for charters covering this anyway) that they defer to the
county, or parish (if you're in Louisiana).

The feds should get involved only when the inter-jurisdicional nature of
the crime crosses state boundaries, or if the crime is in the nature of an
attack on the Union itself, or involves national borders -- smuggling, for
example, highjacking an airliner, for example. But murder? Nope. Even in
the case of an inter-state serial killer, law enforecement agencies may
cooperate, and even seek assistance from the FBI, but once a suspect is
apprehended, try him/her for each crime, in the proper jurisdiction.
Timothy McVeigh should have been tried in Oklahoma state courts.

The desire on the part of lawmakers to look responsive to their
constituents by passing laws addressing problems results in bad law.

The U.S. Constitution actually gave the federal government fairly little
to do, especially when it comes to the day-to-day workings of normal
existence. The major shift, or perhaps the hinge point for the swing, was
a 1942 Supreme Court case:

===============================
Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small
quantity of winter wheat ? some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and
some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment
Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he
would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels
per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his
own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay.

Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices
unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr.
Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it ? and that
affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat
rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to
sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the
government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it. 
===============================
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0895g.asp

A friend of mine some years ago, who was getting an MBA, studied this
case, and went a bit further than the author of this website. He told me
that the govt. (Roosevelt administration?) specifically pursued this case
in order to get "Constitutional Blessing" from the (packed by FDR) Supreme
Court for an expansionist agenda. If I have any of that wrong, well, blame
my imperfect memory.

jed
-- 
We're frogs who are getting boiled in a pot full of single-character
morphemes, and we don't notice. - Larry Wall; Perl6, Apocalypse 5