Ok legal/lawyer types, explain this one to me

[cartman]

Here's a link to the story:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...07041/-1/RSS05

The gist of the article is that a teacher was giving booze and pot to high school kids at this house, and taping the kids having sex. I get that he is charged with those things. But the final sentence in the article threw me for a loop:

Levine is being charged federally under a provision for interstate and foreign commerce, because the video camera and tapes he used were made in Japan, according to federal prosecutors.

WTF?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

WTF?

My guess would be that it's creative prosecution in order to get a lengthier sentence and/or a plea bargain instead of going to trial.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here's a link to the story:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...07041/-1/RSS05

The gist of the article is that a teacher was giving booze and pot to high school kids at this house, and taping the kids having sex. I get that he is charged with those things. But the final sentence in the article threw me for a loop:



WTF?

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, and I have never stayed at a Holiday Inn (that I recall). So you are warned.

But I think that is just the method/law/loophole by which the Feds are gaining the ability to charge this guy in what would normally be a state's case. It might be the Feds' laws are tougher to beat, and so they worked a deal with the state to charge this guy with federal charges. Or they might have said, "Screw it" like with Vick, and charged him, even as the state prepares its own case. Make sense?

It seems an oddly uncritical thing to be included in the article, though, given what you said, but I admit I didn't actually click on the link and read the sentences leading up to it.

[Logan]

I's like an old man Izulde, right down to the profession.

[MrBug708]

Im kind of afraid of the demon in the picture right about the snakes head

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, its a way of getting federal child porn law to apply. He is using something purchased through interstate commerce in order to perform an illegal act (videotaping kids here).

edit: otherwise, it would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to have federal child pornography laws.

[JediKooter]

They were made there, not bought there, so unless he ordered it directly from the manufacturer, sounds like a stretch to me. If they want to pull that stunt, then whatever store sold him that equipment should be an excesory.

Don't get me wrong, what he did was very very very bad and if he is guilty he needs to go to jail, however, if I was on that jury, I could not logically give a guilty verdict on that charge.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

They were made there, not bought there, so unless he ordered it directly from the manufacturer, sounds like a stretch to me. If they want to pull that stunt, then whatever store sold him that equipment should be an excesory.

Don't get me wrong, what he did was very very very bad and if he is guilty he needs to go to jail, however, if I was on that jury, I could not logically give a guilty verdict on that charge.

Well, this is how it works. Since the camera came from overseas and was placed in interstate commerce (though to be honest, it could have been made in the same state and placed on a website to be sold over the country), then Congress has a right to regulate uses of that device... including, in this case, saying it can't be used for child porn.

Now, of course, we can advocate for dramatically reducing the reach of the Commerce Clause (something I'd be amenable to), but that'll never happen, a) simply because people would get too upset when things like federal child pornography laws would get struck down, and b) even with the recent turn to Federalism, there is a lot of Supreme Court precedent that basically anything that is related to a commercial activity (as opposed to before the 90s, anything that can impact commerce in any way) can be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

[RainMaker]

Seems like bullshit to me. Couldn't you make claims that the wood on the chair they sat on came from a Brazilian rainforest. I can't imagine a judge would let that fly.

It's also no way to treat the coolest fucking teacher ever.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Seems like bullshit to me. Couldn't you make claims that the wood on the chair they sat on came from a Brazilian rainforest. I can't imagine a judge would let that fly.

They've only let it fly for decades .

Seriously, a judge will have to let it fly or be smacked down by the appeals court for violating decades long Supreme Court of the US precedent.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, this is how it works. Since the camera came from overseas and was placed in interstate commerce (though to be honest, it could have been made in the same state and placed on a website to be sold over the country), then Congress has a right to regulate uses of that device... including, in this case, saying it can't be used for child porn.

Now, of course, we can advocate for dramatically reducing the reach of the Commerce Clause (something I'd be amenable to), but that'll never happen, a) simply because people would get too upset when things like federal child pornography laws would get struck down, and b) even with the recent turn to Federalism, there is a lot of Supreme Court precedent that basically anything that is related to a commercial activity (as opposed to before the 90s, anything that can impact commerce in any way) can be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

I see what you are saying, but, to be honest, that really sounds convoluted. It sounds like a Rube Goldberg machine for a law.

Why not just make the law simple? Say, regardless of what was used, if you are charged with child pornography, it's a federal offense, period. No need for some commerce charge at all.

I'm with RainMaker on this one. If I was juror, I would not return a guilty vote on that specific issue. It sounds very illogical. The only thing that could make it come kinda sorta close to logical is if the manufacturer and the reseller were also charged. No different than going after a drug dealer on murder charges because someone overdosed and died from the stuff they bought from him.

[cartman]

I've definitely heard the interstate commerce piece brought up for the distribution (via mail or internet), or the production, if the people traveled across state lines. But I've never heard it used like in this case.

It would seem to be that if you made your own camera and film from pieces bought and manufactured in the state you reside and then made kiddie porn, there wouldn't be any federal repercussions.

[Barkeep49]

I'm with those who say this is a clear example of the Federal Government abusing its power.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If I was juror, I would not return a guilty vote on that specific issue.

You could engage in jury nullification, but you'd have to get others to go with you and I'm sure the rest would say, this is clearly child porn, I'm not letting him go free!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

I've definitely heard the interstate commerce piece brought up for the distribution (via mail or internet), or the production, if the people traveled across state lines. But I've never heard it used like in this case.

It would seem to be that if you made your own camera and film from pieces bought and manufactured in the state you reside and then made kiddie porn, there wouldn't be any federal repercussions.

US CODE: Title 18,2251. Sexual exploitation of children

if that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer

People get busted under federal law for simply producing child porn all the time.

[cartman]

So in my scenario there wouldn't be any federal actions.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

So in my scenario there wouldn't be any federal actions.

Interstate commerce is read broadly, so even if you bought and manufactured your camera from stuff in your state (considering that none of those individual materials was manufactured even partly out of state), if it was put in the stream of commerce, it'd be read as interstate commerce (at the very least having a discernible commercial impact on the market, due to increased supply).

Somewhat similar to the argument made by Justice Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich, ie, the medical marijuana case.

So, nice try, but according to precedents stretching back to Wickard v. Filburn back in the 1930s, no dice.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You could engage in jury nullification, but you'd have to get others to go with you and I'm sure the rest would say, this is clearly child porn, I'm not letting him go free!

Wouldn't the manufacturing/distribution of the child porn be a big enough charge on its own though? That is if that is one of the charges against him.

[cartman]

According to the link for the quote, this only came into law last year. So I'd be surprised if there were a lot of legal precedents set yet on that particular part of the law.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Wouldn't the manufacturing/distribution of the child porn be a big enough charge on its own though? That is if that is one of the charges against him.

What do you think the federal law they are charging him with is?

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

According to the link for the quote, this only came into law last year. So I'd be surprised if there were a lot of legal precedents set yet on that particular part of the law.

There is tons of precedent for courts upholding Congress using Commerce Clause power to enact legislation seemingly out of its domain.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Interstate commerce is read broadly, so even if you bought and manufactured your camera from stuff in your state (considering that none of those individual materials was manufactured even partly out of state), if it was put in the stream of commerce, it'd be read as interstate commerce (at the very least having a discernible commercial impact on the market, due to increased supply).

Somewhat similar to the argument made by Justice Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich, ie, the medical marijuana case.

So, nice try, but according to precedents stretching back to Wickard v. Filburn back in the 1930s, no dice.

Look up the Dallas Express Airlines petition to the FAA for a waiver from the Interstate Commerce requirements of the Department of Transportation, since the airline was only going to operate inside the borders of the state of Texas. The waver was granted. I'll have to see if I still have the documents on that one.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

According to the link for the quote, this only came into law last year. So I'd be surprised if there were a lot of legal precedents set yet on that particular part of the law.

There has been child porn law prior to this one. Likely a restatement of the law from somewhere else.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

Look up the Dallas Express Airlines petition to the FAA for a waiver from the Interstate Commerce requirements of the Department of Transportation, since the airline was only going to operate inside the borders of the state of Texas. The waver was granted. I'll have to see if I still have the documents on that one.

They did have to petition for a waiver though, right? If they were not subject to it, they wouldn't have to ask the federal government if it was ok.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They did have to petition for a waiver though, right? If they were not subject to it, they wouldn't have to ask the federal government if it was ok.

At the end of the day, it was not considered Interstate Commerce.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

At the end of the day, it was not considered Interstate Commerce.

So they didn't have to ask for a waiver?

Not entirely sure how an airline asking a FEDERAL agency from a WAIVER from federal laws means the Commerce Clause doesn't apply. It seems to be proof that it does. The federal government said, ok, you don't have to be subject to the DOT law. The federal government granting you a waiver doesn't mean that the Constitutional provision doesn't apply... in fact it indicates just the opposite.

What happens if the FAA denies the waiver?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So they didn't have to ask for a waiver?

The waiver wasn't issued as an exclusion from being considered "Interstate Commerce". The final ruling said that our (Dallas Express Airlines) interpretation of not being bound by the "Interstate Commerce" definition of the requirements for being issued a Certificate of Operation by the FAA was correct. Since we were operating inside the borders of a single state (Texas), that was not interstate commerce, and the we were waived from having to meet the Department of Transportation Interstate Commerce requirements that were part of being issued a FAA Certificate of Operation. So in the end it wasn't a waiver, it was decided that those parts were simply not applicable.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What do you think the federal law they are charging him with is?

Then the interstate commerce charge for the video equipment seems pretty ticky tack then.

I can think of:
Child endagerment, child pornography, child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and drug charges for the pot. Sounds like plenty to put him away for lots of years without the interstate commerce charge. Just saying...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What happens if the FAA denies the waiver?

I started the above reply before your edit.

We were the first airline to try and claim we weren't interstate commerce. After we set the precedent, there were a couple of tourist day-trip airlines in Alaska that were granted their certificate of operation without having to make any kind of appeal by simply invoking our case.

If the interpretation had been denied, then I'm sure that there would have been appeals up through the chain, to whatever the legal end it eventually wound. Our main investor was a lawyer, so he would have gotten a kick out the whole thing if it led to the Supreme Court.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Then the interstate commerce charge for the video equipment seems pretty ticky tack then.

I can think of:
Child endagerment, child pornography, child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and drug charges for the pot. Sounds like plenty to put him away for lots of years without the interstate commerce charge. Just saying...

....

What do you think they are charging him for? They are charging him under federal child pornography laws. The ONLY way they can do that is by saying the video equipment being from Japan falls under federal regulation because of the interstate commerce clause.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

The waiver wasn't issued as an exclusion from being considered "Interstate Commerce". The final ruling said that our (Dallas Express Airlines) interpretation of not being bound by the "Interstate Commerce" definition of the requirements for being issued a Certificate of Operation by the FAA was correct. Since we were operating inside the borders of a single state (Texas), that was not interstate commerce, and the we were waived from having to meet the Department of Transportation Interstate Commerce requirements that were part of being issued a FAA Certificate of Operation. So in the end it wasn't a waiver, it was decided that those parts were simply not applicable.

You'll have to provide me with a link. Seems strange... after all, it was only a handful of years ago that the SCOTUS decided that growing pot and consuming it could fall under interstate commerce under a general federal plan to deal with interstate commerce (Gonzales v. Raich).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You'll have to provide me with a link. Seems strange... after all, it was only a handful of years ago that the SCOTUS decided that growing pot and consuming it could fall under interstate commerce under a general federal plan to deal with interstate commerce (Gonzales v. Raich).

I'll see if I can find it. A quick Google Search has our original application from 1994 out there, where we did ask for the DoT blessing, but not the second one in 1995 that was done as an intra-state entity only.

[ISiddiqui]

Especially since this document:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff.../media/cnt.pdf

States that in order to get an ICAO identifier or telephony designator, you need an FAA Certificate (Section 1-4-4), and Dallas Express Airlines has an identifier (DXP) and telephony designator (DALLAS EXPRESS), both on pg. 3-1-32.

Though this document is from 6/5/2008, but was changed most recently on 1/15/09

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

....

What do you think they are charging him for? They are charging him under federal child pornography laws. The ONLY way they can do that is by saying the video equipment being from Japan falls under federal regulation because of the interstate commerce clause.

Seems like it would be pretty easy to just have a "Federal Child Pornography Statute or Clause" passed in congress and the senate. I think because of the type of crime that it is, that child porn should be a federal crime, on its own, with no need to invoke interstate commerce or any other law/statute/clause.

Cool though ISiddiqui, thanks for explaining it

Time to go home

[cartman]

Yes, that is from the FAA. And we got our FAA Certificate of Operation without having to conform to the interstate commerce provisions of the Department of Transportation, which before our challenge, were considered mandatory.

edit: on our original 1994 application, we did in fact have to conform with the interstate commerce provisions before the original Certificate of Operation was established. When we ceased operations in late 1994, the Certificate of Operation was pulled. We regrouped and in early 1995 started the process over, but this time we took the unique stance that since we were operating only inside the borders of Texas, the interstate commerce requirements did not apply. The second Certificate of Operation was issued in 1995, without us having to meet the interstate commerce requirements.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Then the interstate commerce charge for the video equipment seems pretty ticky tack then.

I can think of:
Child endangerment, child pornography, child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and drug charges for the pot. Sounds like plenty to put him away for lots of years without the interstate commerce charge. Just saying...

The issue is that those are state laws, not federal.

The Constitution limits in what cases the federal government can get involved in crimes that happened in a state. So just because someone committed an awful crime, whether it's murder or child pornography or what have you, doesn't mean the feds have any right to get involved. The state is in charge of dealing with criminals in their own backyard, generally.

Using the commerce clause is one way the government uses to get involved in cases like this. I know this is probably an excessively simplistic explanation, constitutional scholars, but I didn't think anyone was directly addressing Jedi's issue.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Then the interstate commerce charge for the video equipment seems pretty ticky tack then.

I can think of:
Child endagerment, child pornography, child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and drug charges for the pot. Sounds like plenty to put him away for lots of years without the interstate commerce charge. Just saying...

Yep and it would be on a state trial.
The feds need an accussation to get it into federal court. Once in federal court they can convict him of any additional charges associated with the crime, even if the federal crime is dropped.

All the ones you listed are NOT federal crimes, interstate commerce is....

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Seems like it would be pretty easy to just have a "Federal Child Pornography Statute or Clause" passed in congress and the senate. I think because of the type of crime that it is, that child porn should be a federal crime, on its own, with no need to invoke interstate commerce or any other law/statute/clause.

Cool though ISiddiqui, thanks for explaining it

Time to go home

I don't think you understand. The Federal government has NO authority under the US Constitution to declare whatever it wants a crime. It must, if it wants to have a Federal Child Pornography Statute, use a portion of the Constitution in order to give it that power. The only thing that would be able to is interstate commerce.

If you said, interstate commerce can't be used, then any "Federal Child Pornography Statute" would be unconstitutional.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yes, that is from the FAA. And we got our FAA Certificate of Operation without having to conform to the interstate commerce provisions of the Department of Transportation, which before our challenge, were considered mandatory.

edit: on our original 1994 application, we did in fact have to conform with the interstate commerce provisions before the original Certificate of Operation was established. When we ceased operations in late 1994, the Certificate of Operation was pulled. We regrouped and in early 1995 started the process over, but this time we took the unique stance that since we were operating only inside the borders of Texas, the interstate commerce requirements did not apply. The second Certificate of Operation was issued in 1995, without us having to meet the interstate commerce requirements.

The FAA is, as you probably know, an agency of the DoT. And, I'd imagine you wouldn't be able to fly without an FAA Certificate. Basically, you were subject to federal law.

What probably happened is some provision in the Federal Aviation Act or a regulation by the Federal Aviation Administration exempted you from more onerous requirements.

For example, I work for the Department of Labor. Employee health plans under 20 participants are exempt from a lot of requirements. That doesn't mean they are immune from the commerce clause's reach. That just means the Department has decided to give them a break.

Like I said, I'll have to see the court decision. If its an administrative ruling, then its obviously internal DOT policy based on your geographic location, not that you aren't subject to the commerce clause (cause that would make absolutely no sense to me or any constitutional lawyer - or we'd all have to read it in law school as that would have been a dramatic repudiation of Wickard v. Filburn).

[GrantDawg]

I think there is more to the reason the Feds got into this case than "need for resources." This seems to be a pretty easy case to make, and it is unlikely local law enforcement would have gotten the Feds involved unless there was an over-riding reason. There was another case of child molestation recently that was prosecuted Federally that didn't seem to make sense as a Federal case, but I think both of these cases might have a common cause. I think that both of these cases might have had a problem with how local law enforcement dealt with the crime, and they asked the Feds to come in for fear a conviction would be overturned. The earlier case, it seemed the state had warning early on of the molestation happening and didn't investigate it very well. This case might be similar (ie. the Police were tipped about this years ago and ignored it, and are now afraid this might become more a trial against them than the accused). Just a speculation. It is not likely that Feds listen to radio scanners and jump into cases because they want to. Someone asked them in and there was a reason. A local proscuter and/or police department aren't likely to give up a collar of this magnitiude unless they were afraid it would make them look bad.

[RedKingGold]

Pretty much with ISquiddi on this one.

There's always a "chance" that a court might be tempted to apply New Federalism principles to limit the federal government's reach, but we're talking about child pornography getting attacked here.

Probably not too hard to stretch the Court's decision in Ferber to allow federal government regulation, either.

EDIT: For clarification (if anyone cares), the Court in Ferber declined to test child pornography against the Miller test to determine if child pornography was obscenity under the 1st Amendment. My interpretation of Ferber was that states could legislate against child pornography without running afoul of the 1st Amendment. My statement above would be better read as "Probably not too hard to stretch the Court's decision in Ferber to allow federal government regulation of child pornography without running afoul of the 1st Amendment."

[Fighter of Foo]

The 9th and 10th amendments were the first one to go.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The 9th and 10th amendments were the first one to go.

It's kind of interesting that in 2009, regular people just assume that federal government has jurisdiction to do whatever it wants. And of course, they largely do these days, to the extent that the question of "whether they can" is just skipped over in the mainstream conciousness.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Autumn

The issue is that those are state laws, not federal.

The Constitution limits in what cases the federal government can get involved in crimes that happened in a state. So just because someone committed an awful crime, whether it's murder or child pornography or what have you, doesn't mean the feds have any right to get involved. The state is in charge of dealing with criminals in their own backyard, generally.

Using the commerce clause is one way the government uses to get involved in cases like this. I know this is probably an excessively simplistic explanation, constitutional scholars, but I didn't think anyone was directly addressing Jedi's issue.

If it is unconstitutional for the feds to become involved, maybe they shouldn't.
It is not like he will go free, the state can send him away for a long, long time.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Surtt

If it is unconstitutional for the feds to become involved, maybe they shouldn't.
It is not like he will go free, the state can send him away for a long, long time.

The constitution gives them authority to get involved in interstate commerce. Since they cameras are made in Japan, that qualifies by the modern interpretation of the commerce clause.

That definitely sounds like a huge stretch, but the courts have utilized the commerce clause to give the federal government the authority to get involved with almost ANYTHING. Because really, everything anyone does relates to interstate commerce in some way.

Somebody mentioned Gonzales v. Raich above, Clarence Thomas dissented in that case and said (I'm no Constitutional scholar, this is just lifted from wiki),

"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

The courts made their own bed - this one of those situations that illustrates how "liberal/conservative" in terms of constitutional interpretation means something competely different than liberal/conservative in polictical preference. An EXTREME liberal reading of the commerce clause allows both for vast federal protection of civil rights (liberal goal), and federal government intrusion in criminal matters like drugs (conservative goal).

While it's a stretch that a camera made in Japan can make something federal, it's also arguably a stretch that a restaraunt's racial discrimination can be federally regulated, just because an interstate traveler might eat there. The court's aren't supposed to make that decision based on whether racial discrimination is bad, or whether marijuna should be punished harshly (but they do)

As for why the federal government would want to prosecute crimes rather than leave them to the state - sometimes a particular county/state prosecutor may be incompetent or lack the resources of the federal government. And sometimes, the penalties might be harsher federally. Or maybe the state screwed up their investigation.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't think you understand. The Federal government has NO authority under the US Constitution to declare whatever it wants a crime.

Then I stand corrected on how easy I thought it would be.

Looks like there would need to be constitutional amendment and those are not easy to get from what I understand.

Originally Posted by Autumn

The issue is that those are state laws, not federal.

My gut says, leave it to the state, but, I see what you mean by using the clause to get involved.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The feds need an accussation to get it into federal court. Once in federal court they can convict him of any additional charges associated with the crime, even if the federal crime is dropped.

Ahhhh ok. I think either way, state or federal, the guy is going away for a long long time, unless they Ted Stevens the case.


Thank you everyone for helping me get a better picture of why they are doing this.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The 9th and 10th amendments were the first one to go.

The 9th and 10th are also somewhat dependant on what the interpretation of the rest of the document is, though .

One can say an expansive view of the Commerce Clause was articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden in the early 1800s.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by molson

The constitution gives them authority to get involved in interstate commerce. Since they cameras are made in Japan, that qualifies by the modern interpretation of the commerce clause.

That definitely sounds like a huge stretch, but the courts have utilized the commerce clause to give the federal government the authority to get involved with almost ANYTHING. Because really, everything anyone does relates to interstate commerce in some way.

Somebody mentioned Gonzales v. Raich above, Clarence Thomas dissented in that case and said (I'm no Constitutional scholar, this is just lifted from wiki),

"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

The courts made their own bed - this one of those situations that illustrates how "liberal/conservative" in terms of constitutional interpretation means something competely different than liberal/conservative in polictical preference. An EXTREME liberal reading of the commerce clause allows both for vast federal protection of civil rights (liberal goal), and federal government intrusion in criminal matters like drugs (conservative goal).

While it's a stretch that a camera made in Japan can make something federal, it's also arguably a stretch that a restaraunt's racial discrimination can be federally regulated, just because an interstate traveler might eat there. The court's aren't supposed to make that decision based on whether racial discrimination is bad, or whether marijuna should be punished harshly (but they do).

I understand all (at least most) of that.

This seems like a clear case of "The Ends Justify The Means."
When it comes to law enforcement I do not believe that is the attitude we should have.

The constitution is the basis of our government.
If the fed and/or congress ignore it (or make absurd claims to get around it) and the courts go along, it becomes a worthless peace of paper (or pig skin or whatever it is). Looking around I see it happen more and more from our government and it scares me.

As for why the federal government would want to prosecute crimes rather than leave them to the state - sometimes a particular county/state prosecutor may be incompetent or lack the resources of the federal government. And sometimes, the penalties might be harsher federally. Or maybe the state screwed up their investigation.

I am sure there is a lot of things the federal government would like to do, but can't.
This was intentional.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

I've definitely heard the interstate commerce piece brought up for the distribution (via mail or internet), or the production, if the people traveled across state lines. But I've never heard it used like in this case.

It would seem to be that if you made your own camera and film from pieces bought and manufactured in the state you reside and then made kiddie porn, there wouldn't be any federal repercussions.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Autumn

The issue is that those are state laws, not federal.

The Constitution limits in what cases the federal government can get involved in crimes that happened in a state. So just because someone committed an awful crime, whether it's murder or child pornography or what have you, doesn't mean the feds have any right to get involved. The state is in charge of dealing with criminals in their own backyard, generally.

Using the commerce clause is one way the government uses to get involved in cases like this. I know this is probably an excessively simplistic explanation, constitutional scholars, but I didn't think anyone was directly addressing Jedi's issue.

I think Jedi's point is more along the lines of "why does it need to be a federal law ALL THE TIME." What's the problem with letting states deal with it? It's the type of issue where I doubt any state is going be a safe-haven for it.