Tweet
"Speedy" trial is subjective.
How does federalising state "crimes" and non-crimes guarantee a republican form of government?
Oerdin -
Equal "protection", not equal sentences. This was to "protect" our rights equally, not make sure you pay the same fine for speeding as me. There are only a handful of crimes listed in the Constitution for which Congress has jurisdiction when the crime is committed within a state's jurisdiction - treason and counterfeiting are all I can remember along with piracy and violating tariff or tax laws. But anyone can see Congress has federalised thousands, if not millions of state laws and continues to expand it's control in violation of constitutional limits. So, I can only ask for people who care about the Constitution to use a bit of logic - why did the Framers list only a few crimes if the Framers really meant to give Congress the power to federalise a multitude of laws within the states?
Of course, the way some people define "interstate commerce", just about everything falls under federal jurisdiction.
The US constitution guarantee's for every state a republican form of government, and they are indeed entitled to it.
Oerdin -
this could be seen as violating the equal protection clause of the constitution.
Of course, the way some people define "interstate commerce", just about everything falls under federal jurisdiction.
Comment