Grumpy

Strictly speaking, there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction to prosecute any crimes at all, save one: treason.

The Congress is authorized to levy taxes and maintain a government infrastructure (and regulate commerce with foreign nations, between states, and with Indian tribes). Nothing is said about the power to make any act illegal.

Which is why the <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/pI.html" target="_blank">U.S. Criminal Code</a> is carefully constructed to apply to illegal acts committed within the circumscribed areas of federal jurisdiction: the District of Columbia, on ships, in post offices, or anything which might interfere with interstate commerce.

Case in point, Title 18, Part I, chapter 13, Section 247: Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs

Subsection D is your standard sentencing guideline. But what of the circumstances in B?

Weird, huh? Thought you might find that interesting. Incidentally, not everybody is convinced that "Commerce" is the magic word that gives Congress all its power (a la "Shazam!"). Chief Justice Rehnquist dismissed the argument when striking down the <a href="http://www.seidata.com/~neusys/colm0063a.html" target="_blank">federal ban on guns in schools</a>.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

Grumpy

This is slightly afield from the topic, and hardly a C/S issue, but I thought I'd address the "War on Drugs" issue directly.

Federal drug statutes are not in the criminal code; rather, they are contained in <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/ch13.html" target="_blank">Title 21</a>, which deals with foods. The main rationale, according to the Congressional findings, is that narcotics are detrimental to public health, and therefore regulated under the "General Welfare" clause. (With some interstate commerce thrown in to boot.)

See, it's not the drugs that are illegal. It's distributing them that's a crime, as surely as if one were selling poison candy.

Even under this rationale, it does seem like a leap to punish <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/844.html" target="_blank">simple possession</a>, if it's really just a public health & welfare matter.

Individual States might have an easier time criminalizing any substance they like, depending on how broadly their Constitutions are written. For example, I know Alaska has simple statements saying the legislature shall provide for public health and public welfare. It would seem that the state's entire criminal code, banning taboos from murder to vandalism, rest on these broad powers (unless there's some uncodified Common Law that gives a legislature such power).