[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[djperkins at americanisp.net]

> > 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.

Doesn't an attack on a federal bldg automatically make it a federal matter?
In which case, federal law takes over.  Is trying murder on a federal level 
partly due to the problems fighting organized crime during prohibition?

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

I would rather they be responsible.
 
> 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. 
> ===============================

Odd argument.  Was the farmer participating in a federal farm plan?  If so, he 
probably agreed to raise only so much wheat in exchange for federal aid.
 
> -- 
> 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

That's why you should hop out of the pot now and then.