furface
05-18-2010, 04:55 PM
I was reading US v. COMSTOCK and thought this was funny. I suppose in their view it certainly does grant Congress broad authority to "create such crimes."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf
Thus, the Constitution, which nowhere speaks explicitly about the creation of federal crimes beyond those related to “counterfeiting,” “treason,” or “Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas” or “against the Law of Nations,” Art. I, §8, cls. 6, 10; Art. III, §3, nonetheless grants Congress broad authority to create such crimes.
BTW, they talk about the "Necessary and Proper Clause," but it's really a red herring. This is yet another misuse of the Commerce Clause as far as I can tell.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1224.pdf
Thus, the Constitution, which nowhere speaks explicitly about the creation of federal crimes beyond those related to “counterfeiting,” “treason,” or “Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas” or “against the Law of Nations,” Art. I, §8, cls. 6, 10; Art. III, §3, nonetheless grants Congress broad authority to create such crimes.
BTW, they talk about the "Necessary and Proper Clause," but it's really a red herring. This is yet another misuse of the Commerce Clause as far as I can tell.