Want to take a stab at what the Constitution specifically identifies as federal crimes?
Was it the purpose of the constitution to specifically identify federal crimes? While I am certainly not a constitutional scholar, my recollection of what I learned back in high school many years ago is that the constitution establishes a framework and philosophy of governance as a starting point for establishing and enforcing such laws as necessary to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. One of the very few (maybe the only one?) specific federal crimes mentioned in the constitution is treason, but in reference to impeachment it was certainly recognized that along with treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors were grounds for impeachment.
While "common defense" is one of the few specific authorities given to the federal government, and without question there is much in the constitution that prohibits the federal government from usurping the authority of the states to govern themselves, there is at least acknowledgement that there may arise circumstances where no one state has jurisdiction, such as the specific power granted to Congress To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
With respect to the judiciary, there is a related recognition of the potential for crimes to extend beyond state boundaries and jurisdictions: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
At the time of writing the constitution, the world was a very different place than it is now. Other than flight across state lines to avoid prosecution or punishment for a crime committed against one state, or its citizens, it would have been difficult to conceive of circumstances where federal jurisdiction would apply because crimes could be committed within several states simultaneously. We cannot know from the written words whether the constitution omitted any specific reference to such crimes or circumstances by design, or simply by omission, so the vague references to non-state-jurisdictional crimes are all there is it go by.
Does the constitution prohibit the establishment of federal law to protect the citizens of all states from crimes that cannot be localized? If crimes involve the use of communication devices that carry information instantaneously across state lines, or federal mail, or are crimes against masses of people instead of directed at specific victims located in a specific state, are states prohibited from granting authority to the federal government to deal with such crimes? Far greater legal minds than mine have grappled with these issues and concluded that there are circumstances where crimes are too non-specific to attributed to one state, and should come under federal jurisdiction. The emergence of such laws, by consent of the states, define what is a federal crime, not the constitution itself, which merely left the door open by not prohibiting their establishment, and hinting at the possibly that some crimes may not fit neatly under the jurisdiction of an individual state.
I happen to think, as I'm sure you do, that in many cases too much authority has been granted to the federal government. If I got to draw the line it would surround a different range of circumstances than it does now, and I dare say your boundary would be more restrictive than mine. But there are many others who would think that my boundaries are far too restrictive. Such is the nature of politics within government by consent, The evolution from state law to federal law may be in large measure be nothing more than a natural consequence of the blurring of state lines brought about by the huge increase in mobility of the population of the nation. A uniformity of laws among states, whether by commonality of state law, or by granting jurisdiction to federal authority, may be essential to insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare.
I'd like to see federal jurisdiction limited to activities that cross state boundaries, but the fact of the matter is that except for mostly small, privately owned businesses there are few enterprises that operate in only one state. The vast majority of publicly held companies and the financial companies that deal in the business of raising and transferring capital for those public companies carry out their activities in many different states. Far better, IMHO, for those activities to be under a uniform set of standards and federal authority than to be subjected to a different set of rules in each state where they operate, as long as the individual states involved consent to that arrangement.
Dan |
