[CLUE-Talk] Bowling for Columbine

[Jed S. Baer]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 19:53:10 GMT
<djperkins at americanisp.net> wrote:

> > 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?

The question is why should it? It's only because it is defined as such by
statute. Yes, you can argue that it's an attack on the Union, by way of
property owned, through the Union, by the People. But I ask whether
justice is really better served. Why it is important the the federal
system prosecute such a case, rather than the state, or county? Where's
the benefit?

Or, take the example of killing an FBI officer. I think this is a federal
crime. Contrast that to killing a federally employed mail clerk. Or
killing a Senator. We're all supposed to be equal. If so, then why would
one murder be prosecuted differently from another? The same argument can
be made for hate-crime legislation, but that's another thread.

> In which case, federal law takes over.  Is trying murder on a
> federal level partly due to the problems fighting organized crime during
> prohibition?

I don't know the origins of it. I can see how the reasoning would go:
committing murder while in the act of importing whiskey illegally into the
U.S., for example.

There is another argument, however, which is uniformity of prosecution,
and I see some merit in that. One could argue that it's unfair for the
same crime to be punished differently from one jurisdiction to another.
Possesion of less than 3 ounces (or 1 ounce) of marijuana, in some
jurisdictions, is equivalent to a speeding ticket. In others, you'll do
jail time, or get probation, or maybe a suspended sentence for a first
offense.

My only argument, really, is that any govermnental activity, whether it be
taxation, or regulation, be carried out at the lowest level feasible. If
there's a really good reason for using a higher jurisdiction, that's fine.
But that reason must also be considered against whether the matter can
also be accomplished at a lower level.

Just think of how much easier taxation would be if this rule were
followed. Fund the federal government by a levy on the states. The formula
for doing so would almost certainly be less complex than the current tax
code. There's an argument against doing so because it gives more "purse
string" power to states such as California and New York, and thus perhaps
upsets the balance of power created by having a House of Representatives
and a Senate. Nonetheless, wouldn't it be grand to have to deal with 1
fewer income tax filing each year? There would have to be some provision
for multi-state corporations, but individuals wouldn't have to deal with
it.

> > 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 politician who seeks re-election has a strong incentive to act on the
basis of looking good to the folks back home. They want to be able to say
"See, we did something, and I helped!".
 
> > 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
> 
> 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.

Nope. Not as I recall. He was just doing the normal old family farm thing.
But, lets' say he was the recipient of some sort of farm-aid. Then, any
issues regarding how much wheat he grew/sold would be an issue of the
terms of his participation -- essentially a contractual/regulatory
problem, not one of interstate commerce and the Constitution. The case was
entirely about finding a lever, or making a crack in the door, so to
speak, for increasing federal involvement. It was the proverbial hole in
the dike.

> > -- 
> > 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.

Ribbit. I need a new sig, but I haven't come across anything equally as
interesting.

jed
-- 
http://www.rockchucker.com/cosmic/