Past Mistake - Am I Still in Danger

I believe he means that the messages did travel an interstate route and thereby triggering federal statutes. I suppose it is just as reasonable as the situations used to infer federal jurisdiction on marijuana in states where it is decriminalized or for medical use.


anyway, doesn;t this kid ever watch "To Catch a Predator". There are often statutes that make even lewd discussions with a minor of certain ages illegal in some states let alone anything specific in the discussion.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

I believe he means that the messages did travel an interstate route and thereby triggering federal statutes. I suppose it is just as reasonable as the situations used to infer federal jurisdiction on marijuana in states where it is decriminalized or for medical use.

---

That is still a violation of the US Code, the Controlled substances act.

From the Raich case:

Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

That is still a violation of the US Code, the Controlled substances act.

From the Raich case:

Held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31.

---

Right but it is how they have allowed it to come under federal jurisdiction. Although the parties involved may have never left the state nor had any dealings knowingly involving another state, they allow very obscure involvement of the situation to cause the situation to come under federal scrutiny and control.

In the Raich decision, the ruling was based on the supposition that those 6 little weeds would somehow affect the national distribution of marijuana therefore allowing federal jurisdiction over those 6 little plants.

Now, I am not pro-legalization but come on. Is this not stretching things? I see no connection between 6 plants and the hundreds if not thousands of tons of marijuana that is disbursed across the country and actually crossing state lines.

We see the reasoning in (b) of the Syllabus:



(b) Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See, e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151. If Congress decides that the “ ‘total incidence’ ” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154—155. Of particular relevance here is Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 127—128, where, in rejecting the appellee farmer’s contention that Congress’ admitted power to regulate the production of wheat for commerce did not authorize federal regulation of wheat production intended wholly for the appellee’s own consumption, the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity. The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. E.g., Lopez, 514 U.S., at 557. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Pp. 12—20.

like I said, 6 little plants are going to cause the entire country to experience "Reefer Madness". Oh my God. What's next? If I pee in my front yard I will be accused of dumping human waste in the ocean because my urine could in a great stretch of ones imagination possibly be carried via the watersheds ultimately into the ocean.

They make the conclusion on the inability to determine if the MJ crossing the state line is what those folks produced or if it was those guys up in the mountains growing 50 acres worth.

I think a simple comparison that if it was in a little bitty ziplock bag and not a bale the size of a hay bale, it would be simple to decide.

The feds have stretched the connections so thin that a blind man could see through them.

to me, this is an obvious misinterpretation of the application of the standards required to allow jurisdiction.

Then we have Lopez, which exceeded Congress' Commerce Clause power??


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZS.html

Wow. I guess it may be ok for me to go pee in the front yard after all.:p

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Huh??


I think I know what you mean (??), but what I meant was if he was in Texas and she was in Virginia, that is INTERstate.

---

BOR, I found a case somewhere that since the messages in question were transmitted across state lines (and then back again across those state lines) that the federal statutes around such traffic can be considered to be the underlying law.

I will track it down.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Wow. I guess it may be ok for me to go pee in the front yard after all.:p

---

I have some annoying neighbors. Wanna take a vacation to Florida and pee in THEIR yard?

To the OP:

Section 13A-6-110
Soliciting a child by computer.

(a) In addition to the provisions of Section 13A-6-69, a person is guilty of solicitation of a child by a computer if the person is 19 years of age or older and the person knowingly, with the intent to commit an unlawful sex act, entices, induces, persuades, seduces, prevails, advises, coerces, or orders, by means of a computer, a child who is less than 16 years of age and at least three years younger than the defendant, to meet with the defendant or any other person for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse, sodomy, or to engage in a sexual performance, obscene sexual performance, or sexual conduct for his or her benefit.

(b) For purposes of determining jurisdiction, the offense is committed in this state if the transmission that constitutes the offense either originates in this state or is received in this state.

(c) A person charged under this section shall be tried as an adult, and the record of the proceeding shall not be sealed nor subject to expungement.

(d) Solicitation of a child by computer is a Class B felony.


Also, consider:

13A-6-70 (a) Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every offense defined in this article, with the exception of subdivision (a)(3) of Section 13A-6-65, that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim.
<snip>
(c) A person is deemed incapable of consent if he is:

(1) Less than 16 years old; or

Also, there are court cases which I cannot find at this moment, that have ruled that a continuing sexual relationship that began when one of the actors was below the age of consent tolls the statute of limitations. Think about that.