Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Well not just that Eagleon but it also makes it easier to arrest people for crimes that do a lot of traveling.

I don't know if Serial killing is a federal crime...

[Darvi]

I don't know if Serial killing is a federal crime...

Better test it. Just in case.

[Neonivek]

I don't know if Serial killing is a federal crime...

Better test it. Just in case.

But all we have in here is Harvest Crunch.

[GlyphGryph]

I was pointing at that such a contention is equally goddamn irrelevant to matters as "what if someone bribes them not to enforce the law".
The solution is making that shit illegal, because they are perfectly capable of doing that even if they decide enforcing these particular drug wars isn't worth it.

If Idaho were to legalize ritual sacrifice, the federal government would be able to step in and say 'No, killing people is bad,' and that is a good thing.

Actually, under current law I don't think they could. This is why killing people is legal in certain states under certain conditions and not in others - federal laws against killing only apply in areas where the federal government has jurisdiction. If the state was sacrificing it's own people, legally, the government doesn't (and honestly, shouldn't) have any standing unless it also happens to violate a valid federal law or the federal constitution.

The federal government can't actually prosecute you for murdering people if it's not illegal in that state, so long as its covered by state jurisdiction.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

If Idaho were to legalize ritual sacrifice, the federal government would be able to step in and say 'No, killing people is bad,' and that is a good thing.

Actually, under current law I don't think they could. This is why killing people is legal in certain states under certain conditions and not in others - federal laws against killing only apply in areas where the federal government has jurisdiction. If the state was sacrificing it's own people, legally, the government doesn't (and honestly, shouldn't) have any standing unless it also happens to violate a valid federal law or the federal constitution.

*Cough* it'd be directly violating that nice part of the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

So it'd be relatively easy to argue that a state-issued 'sacrifice bill' would be unconstitutional. What an absurd situation to imagine, though.

[Eagleon]

18 U.S.C. 1111 and 2340/2340A. My campaign for Senate was over before it began ._.

[GlyphGryph]

Whether the 5th amendment would apply rests, I assume, on exactly how the ritual sacrifice law was passed. But you are right in that many implementations could probably be overruled with that.

The federal government can't actually prosecute you for murdering people if it's not illegal in that state, so long as its covered by state jurisdiction.

Eagleon -
One of us doesn't seem to understand how federal law works. It may be me. I understand there are federal laws against certain things. But that only covers situations in which federal law applies, and it often doesn't. I don't understand how either of those are actually relevant to this discussion.

In our hypothetical situation, that law means you could not sacrifice a federal employee (falling, as he does, within federal jurisdiction), but not much beyond that. It is a law, but the Feds aren't allowed to execute in it in every situation - otherwise, Texan executioners would probably getting a few knocks on their doors, I'd imagine.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Whether the 5th amendment would apply rests, I assume, on exactly how the ritual sacrifice law was passed. But you are right in that many implementations could probably be overruled with that.

I'm sure if we tried hard enough we could write a ritual economic sacrifice bill that got around it.

[GlyphGryph]

I think the key is that we need to limit ourselves to sacrificing criminals who've gone through the court system, and simply add "gets added to the 'potential sacrifice pool'" to the sentences for every state crime. That should exempt them from 5th amendment coverage pretty handily, I think.

Although Eminent Domain makes it quite clear that "due process of law" does not mean "have to be convicted of a crime". Just that the ritual sacrifice has to be done in accordance with some sort of official process. I'll admit, I'm a bit unsure exactly how far that argument will stretch, though.

Also:
Eagleon, if this is as you say it is - why aren't the feds knocking on the doors of Texas executioners to drag them to trial? (I believe it's because local law is the only law that's applicable, and it says murdering people under those conditions is a-ok)

[Eagleon]

In the case of state laws, there's usually some communication and cooperation between them in established code. For instance, 2340B has "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding." State laws couldn't say the same thing without being laughed at, though.

Whether or not a federal law begins to be enforced in contradiction to a state law comes down to whether or not action is being taken (the crimes are being investigated and something is being done to stop illegal activity). I believe this is where jurisdiction comes in, in that someone has to take it, and if state law doesn't allow for taking it (it's legal), federal enforcement gets it. If you have someone violating a federal law and state law even explicitly legalizes what they're doing, they've still committed a federal crime and are subject to the punishments federal law has for them.

Actually, considering this, smokers should probably be a little wary of legalizing it on the state level, because that would easily enable you to be charged on the federal level. Federal prisons are not fun-times, unless the alternative is Texas or something, I dunno.

Also:
Eagleon, if this is as you say it is - why aren't the feds knocking on the doors of Texas executioners to drag them to trial? (I believe it's because local law is the only law that's applicable, and it says murdering people under those conditions is a-ok)

It's a bit different when it's an official action (I think? O.o). And federal law actually still permits the death penalty for certain things, including murder. edit - from 1111, "(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." So somewhere in federal law is codified when it is lawful, and presumably states get some of that lawful killing action along the way. I'm nowhere near lawyer enough to say for sure, but I believe it's something like that.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm honestly not sure if the federal government HAS the power to make killing generally illegal within a state. I'm pretty sure the 10th amendement puts that solidly to rest. Federal law needs at least /some/ sort of argument for federal jurisdiction, and (aside from the 5th amendment, mentioned above) I don't think they have any in the ritual sacrifice case.

I'm honestly not sure they should, either, unless its generally seen as bad enough people can pass a constitutional amendment granting them the power to regulate that.

[lemon10]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ritual killings would probably be considered as "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" by those Pinko Communist judges at the supreme court, and thus would be overthrown there.

That said, if the judges were first replaced by Ar'thalz cultists, then it would be perfectly legal.

[Darvi]

Frankly, it can't be any more cruel than regular death penalty, and it's only unusual because you don't sacrifice enough people.

[Eagleon]

I'm honestly not sure if the federal government HAS the power to make killing generally illegal within a state. I'm pretty sure the 10th amendement puts that solidly to rest. Federal law needs at least /some/ sort of argument for federal jurisdiction, and (aside from the 5th amendment, mentioned above) I don't think they have any in the ritual sacrifice case.

I'm honestly not sure they should, either, unless its generally seen as bad enough people can pass a constitutional amendment granting them the power to regulate that.

The 10th amendment says, in a nutshell, "The federal government has the powers given to them by the constitution, otherwise the states and people have them instead." It doesn't, however, prohibit the establishment of federal law by the people (really, their representatives, but everyone ignores that), and that is what happened. If you wanted to I'm sure you could trace each government entity, law, federal prison, and agency back to their origin from an elected official (the DEA was established by Nixon, for instance), but suffice it to say, we've agreed to this - the federal government has been given these powers by the people, from rights that would otherwise indeed be ours by the 10th amendment.

That's why people commonly mistake it for being a truism - they don't realize that almost everything the federal government stands on was established from the right to vote in the goons that created it. But it also protects our right to undo almost all of the federal government and go back to the way things were when the thing was signed, should we choose.

[GlyphGryph]

The Federal Government is not, in fact, the people. Nor, for that matter, are corporations people.

That is a completely bullshit argument that doesn't pass muster of precedent. If that was truly the case, the 10th amendment would be worthless and the bulk of the constitution with it.