No End of Interstate Commerce Clause Abuse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wombat

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2002
Messages
24
Location
No where else but Texas
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_re_us/attorney_ledge;_ylt=AuxoSSBF7tVp36uGB.uCqHxI2ocA

Short story: Apparently drug addicted lawyer robs pharmacy at gunpoint of prescription meds, is caught by police, stabs himself in the neck with a pencil in one suicide attempt, then jumps from a hospital window in a second. Sad, but almost routine in today's world. Here is what caught my attention:

The perp "faces federal counts of obstructing interstate commerce by robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence for the Sept. 18 robbery of Barrett Drug Center in Edmond."

Robbery is now "obstruction of interstate commerce" and a Federal offense???!!!

The infinitely elastic interstate commerce clause strikes again. What is next? Shoplifting a pack of cigarettes is also "obstruction of interstate commerce" and federal tax evasion for failure to pay the fed taxes, so call in the FBI?

Where is the reset button for all this nonsense? The one in my voting booth does not seem to be working.
 
Some people might not be old enough to know that there are automatic pencils. They were common for decades away back in the Twentieth Century but aren't popular today. Pentel still makes them, though, and they are available.

0007251200542_LG.jpg

They might perhaps be considered "assault pencils" now, ripe for control by the BATFEP (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Pencils), and possibly included by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy in her pending assault weapons ban.

They are undoubtedly assault weapons just as much as any firearm on Rep. McCarthy's list: that lawyer used one in connection with the commission of a violent crime. Although I haven't yet heard that The Million Moms March have marched to have them confiscated, it's probably an oversight. Jim Brady had a pencil in his briefcase when he was shot, you know, so these things are dangerous no matter who has one.

I lost track. Were we talking about guns? :)
 
Robbery is now "obstruction of interstate commerce" and a Federal offense???!!!
Click to expand...
It's called the Hobbs Act (18USC1951), and it's been around since the 40s. The Hobbs Act makes it illegal to disrupt interstate or foreign commerce through robbery or extortion. Further, violating the Hobbs Act is a federal crime of violence. Therefore if someone uses a firearm when committing a Hobbs Act violation, they are also violating 18USC924(c), which prohibits possessing, brandishing, or discharging a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. That law has also been around for decades.

Now if you don't understand how a business that obtains products from suppliers outside the state is engaged in interstate commerce, then you'll never understand why this suspect is being charged with violating 18USC1951 and 18USC924(c).
 
The robber did not interfere with the ability of the store to complete a transaction across state lines. The goods had already been bought and received. The robber prevented the goods from being sold IN STATE, in a face to face encounter.

If the robber had hijacked the truck while it was en route from one state to the other, that would be interference with an interstate transaction.

The law is being stretched so far that is has become a mockery of justice. Charge the offender with a crime commensurate with his actions, and let the jury decide the outcome. The way the justice department works now, a person performs one action, and gets charged with a dozen violations, so the jury has a menu to choose from. The intent is to throw everything at the offender, and hope something sticks, instead of actually proving one specific charge. It is really a lazy way for the prosecution to avoid proving a specific crime, and still get a conviction for something.

The same goes for charging offenders with much more serious violations than what was actually committed, and then offering to plea bargain to a lessor offense. The idea being that you lie to the offender and convince them that they will be convicted of a major crime, but they can get a good deal and cut their punishment by pleading to a lessor crime. The thought is that only guilty people will accept a plea bargain, so it is OK to trick the ignorant and low intelligence people this way; the problem is that innocent people that can not afford a capable defense, end up accepting a plea to an offense they didn't commit, in order to avoid spending the best part of the remainder of their life incarcerated.

Justice is truly a matter of how much lawyer a person can afford. The DUKE case would had turned out differently, if those students had been poor and unable to afford good legal representation; Nifong would have gotten away with railroading those young men.
 
I only saw the end of the story once last night (Fox News Channel), but there is something about Tennessee State Agents of some sort going across state lines into bordering states, looking for TN residents buying more than 2 cartons of cigarettes.

Didn't see the story a second time, but apparently, when those folks cross back into TN with their more than 2 cartons of cigs, they are getting busted for some sort of Interstate Commerce Law violation.

I'll look for more info on this....

I don't smoke & don't live in TN, but does TN have very high cig tax/pricing, as compared to KY, AR, MS, etc?
 
DMF, what business doesn't obtain any products from suppliers outside its state?

According to the Department of Justice Criminal Resource Manual (1997) for U.S. Attorneys:

9-131.040 Policy

The robbery offense in 18 U.S.C. § 1951 is to be utilized only in instances involving organized crime, gang activity, or wide-ranging schemes. In certain circumstances, the appropriate section of the Criminal Division must be consulted before prosecution is initiated.
Click to expand...

Do you have some insight into how this robbery falls under that policy?
 
I only saw the end of the story once last night (Fox News Channel), but there is something about Tennessee State Agents of some sort going across state lines into bordering states, looking for TN residents buying more than 2 cartons of cigarettes.

Didn't see the story a second time, but apparently, when those folks cross back into TN with their more than 2 cartons of cigs, they are getting busted for some sort of Interstate Commerce Law violation.

I'll look for more info on this....

I don't smoke & don't live in TN, but does TN have very high cig tax/pricing, as compared to KY, AR, MS, etc?
Click to expand...
I don't smoke, or know how TN prices are, but what you described is bullcrap!!! On my trips through NC, there are many tobacco outlets that have discount prices when buying multiple cartons. Those stores are there to take advantage of travelers who are passing through on the interstate and want to load up with tobacco :) Most people traveling the Interstates are usually vacationers/business travelers who are from out of state ;)

I'm just really getting fed up with the fed and state gov'ts sticking their noses into every aspect of our personal business...:(

Pretty soon I bet our county (with a higher gas tax) will say we can't buy gas in the neighboring county (with a lower tax) because it's "tax evasion" :what:
 
Tecumseh, the federal government probably does get bigger any day but why do you believe that it's because of Tennessee's crackdown on people who buy cigarettes in another state in order to evade the state's sales tax? Tennessee is not part of the federal government and Tennessee Department of Revenue agents aren't either.

Here is a newspaper report of Tennessee's cigarette busts: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/27/cigarette-surveillance-program-begins-today/.
 
Robert Hairless, so you are going to quote a DOJ policy (not the law or caselaw) from 1997, and ask me to explain how this case fits a decade old policy from an administration that has not been in control of DOJ in 7 years? Do you know what the current DOJ policy is regarding the Hobbs Act?

Obviously the lawyers at DOJ, ie the prosecutors for the various US Attorney Offices around the country feel that cases like this do meet the current policy and the law, because they prosecute them.

That business is involved in interstate and/or foreign commerce, and the use of violence to disrupt that business does affect interstate or foreign commerce. Again, if you have problems understand that, then you'll never understand why those charges applied.
 
TN has the authority to tax the purchase or use of tobacco within the state of TN. This is not overreaching at all. This is no different than states that charge you a use tax when you buy a new car out of state, that just happens to be the same as the sales tax if bought in state.
 
In Tennessee, possession of more than 2 cartons of cigarettes without a TN Tax Stamp is a misdemeanor. Possesing 25 cartons is a felony.Possession of untaxed tobacco is considered contraband. They will confiscate your car.

My father used to make runs to North Carolina in the 60's to buy untaxed cigs for $2 a carton and bring them back to Tennessee. I think bootlegging ran in the family. He was raised in the mountains of East Tenn.
 
That business is involved in interstate and/or foreign commerce, and the use of violence to disrupt that business does affect interstate or foreign commerce. Again, if you have problems understand that, then you'll never understand why those charges applied.
Click to expand...

I think we understand the rationale, we just think it is a gross and blantant abuse of govt power. The way the commerce clause has been expanded it has for all intents and purposes swallowed up all but a few crumbs of the entire Constitution. It is used to override every explicit restriction on Fed power I can think of off the top of my head.


The modern Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America


We the people of the United States, in order to promote the general welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Powers of the Congress, Courts and Executive Branches

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states


All the rest is hearby deleted as useless fine print nobody needs to read anyway.
 
The Agents that were arresting/investigating people who bought cigs in other states then crossed in to tennesse were not getting them for tax evasion per se. What they were probably getting them for was for buying cigs in another state, paying the lower tax, then selling them in TN that has a higher tax and pocketing the difference. This is a big business, and many people get busted for it. (And yes, they were almost definately Federal Agents)

Roberthairless, where did you get that info on the DOJ Criminal Resource Manual. I would like to read the current one but I can't find it
 
Last edited:
DMF:

Robert Hairless, so you are going to quote a DOJ policy (not the law or caselaw) from 1997, and ask me to explain how this case fits a decade old policy from an administration that has not been in control of DOJ in 7 years? Do you know what the current DOJ policy is regarding the Hobbs Act?

Obviously the lawyers at DOJ, ie the prosecutors for the various US Attorney Offices around the country feel that cases like this do meet the current policy and the law, because they prosecute them.

That business is involved in interstate and/or foreign commerce, and the use of violence to disrupt that business does affect interstate or foreign commerce. Again, if you have problems understand that, then you'll never understand why those charges applied.
Click to expand...

Nicely done, DMF! You could have said that current DOJ policy is different and explained how it was different, but that would not have been insulting. I don't think that you have any problems understanding that. :)

So, please, descend for a moment from your mountaintop and tell us where to find the current DOJ policy, unless it is a secret reserved only for you and the other intelligent few who alone are capable of understanding it.

Again, "what business doesn't obtain any products from suppliers outside its state?" Please type slowly so I and others with deficient intelligence can read your words. They go by so quickly at your present rate of speed that it looks to me as if you've ignored my question in your haste to be insulting. Leave a little more space for the useful stuff in between the insults.

I got the point that you are a real important guy with powers of understanding far greater than those of ordinary mortals. You've made that point in both of your posts in this thread, so even I who am incapable of understanding many things can't avoid understanding that.

If you deign to reply to the two questions I've asked you please be sure to say once again that if we are "incapable of understanding that" we are incapable of understanding anything. The guys at the back of the room might have missed your point the first two times.
 
Where is the reset button for all this nonsense? The one in my voting booth does not seem to be working.
Click to expand...

There was a brief, glorious window that started to open on this issue back in the late 80's and early 90's. A series of Supreme Court decisions started cutting back the expansive interpretation of the enumerated powers that had been used to fuel everything from the New Deal to the War on *some* Drugs. If Bork had been allowed to take his seat, there would have been four solid votes on the Court, needing only one swing. But it was not to be. And there are as a result a number of critical decisions where Scalia, Thomas and the late CJ were dissenting.

I doubt the current Court is prepared to take up this banner again. If the enumerated powers were properly interpreted, it would mean an end to several hundred thousand gob'ment jobs and a serious weaning from the teats. It would also mean giving up power, which is the one thing almost no government has ever been able to do.

Put blutly, I don't think we'll see an end to this nonsense until the entire nation collapses and we have an opportunity to start over again.
 
Robert,

I like those pencils. Really good thing about them is they never leak; you can carry them indefinately without any worry about a ruined shirt or jacket etc.

DMF,

So if the lady I know who had her purse forcebly removed from her possession by some punk two nights ago had some federal reserve notes in her purse, supplied from out of state - having perhaps travelled many times across state lines since issue, along with a credit card issued by a bank registered in another state used to buy goods mail order from other states, etc etc ... the perpetrator of this crime of (in the state of Texas) ... robbery... is going to be the focus of the current United States Department of Justice under the Hobbs Act? Interstate commerce?

Is there anything - at all - not phyically and biologically an actual part of any person's living body tissue - such as; their cloths, jewelry, make up, wristwatches, contact lenses or dental fillings which can not, if the subject of a "robbery", be considered a disruption of "interstate commerce" under the Hobbs Act and therefore suddenly under the magical anything goes federal jurisdiction of the DOJ?

So just where was the FBI when she was filing her police report? Or are they going to contact her later on?

----------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
Now if you don't understand how a business that obtains products from suppliers outside the state is engaged in interstate commerce
Click to expand...
The intent of the "interstate commerce" clause was to allow the flow of goods between the states, preventing the states from putting tariffs on goods going to another state. In this case regulate means to keep flowing, just as when your digestive system is working properly, you are "regular".
The clause was not meant for the fedgov to control everything even slightly related to commerce, otherwise why bother with the constitution.

Now if you don't understand the limited government purpose of the constitution, then you will never have an intelligent conversation about the constitution. And I pity you and the state of this country, because too many citizens truly do not, or don't want to, understand.
 
The intent of the "interstate commerce" clause was to allow the flow of goods between the states, preventing the states from putting tariffs on goods going to another state.
Click to expand...

Actually the intent of the commerce clause was to allow Congress to regulate interstate commerce. You're actually referring to something called the "negative commerce clause." The question is whether or not the massive number of criminal laws and regulations passed under the authority of the commerce clause really have bo diddly to do with fostering interstate commerce.

It's somewhat ironic that the law which has done more to protect interstate commerce than any other--the Uniform Commercial Code--is not a federal law. It probably should have been, but the feds have been too busy deciding what drugs and guns to make illegal.
 
The mechanical pencil in post #2 qualifies as a dirk or dagger under sect. 12020 in the DPRK. A dirk or dagger is anything you can poke somebody with and cause injury. Concealed carry is a felony.
 
Wasn't there a case fairly recently about a guy who wanted to build a select-fire firearm, yet was denied because he would have been "interfering" with interstate commerce (and various other cases usually involving food, in that the interference is because one is NOT buying interstate)?

I like the 18USC924(c) kicker for acting violent during a violent crime. If he robbed the pharmacy with a giant foam finger instead, is there a reduction for being nonviolent during a violent crime? :neener:
 
And the goverment gets a little bit bigger everyday.
Click to expand...
I think the solution is in your sig.

I like the 18USC924(c) kicker for acting violent during a violent crime. If he robbed the pharmacy with a giant foam finger instead, is there a reduction for being nonviolent during a violent crime?
Click to expand...
You can't get charged with a violent crime if it isn't violent now can you.
 
In Raich, SCOTUS ruled that "interstate commerce" went so far as to warrant a dynamic entry to seize a pot plant from an old lady who used it to treat nausea due to her terminal cancer - based on the notion that her doing so negatively affected the illegal trade in contraband.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top