Murder

[Nihil Obstat]

A law against murder is sort of irrelevant, since any person has the right to defend themselves and innocents, with lethal force if necessary.
However, as a law, it is certainly legitimate because it is in accordance with natural law and is not aggressive in any sense.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305073566' post='2239871']
I'm confused dairygirl, what is the debate here? If it is whether murder is wrong and should be banned nationally, i don't think there is any disagreement. But is it a debate on which level of government should handle it? then that would be state. Could you clarify please?
[/quote]

im mostly just curious to see if more people would vote that the federal government should ban murder, than the exact issue with abortion. more people vote that teh federal government should ban murder than they vote that they should ban abortion. my hypothesis is correct. the real debate i'd like to see, that i wouldn't expect people to know to read my mind, is why one is higher than the other. particularly the peopel who voted differently should say why.
unless this issue just compelled people who otherwise wouldn't vote, to vote, and there's no inconsistencies.

the issue about sovreignty and states rights i assumed would pop up, and is an interested issue, though, particularly about murder.

there's been laws against rape by the feds, then nothing by the state, and then the rapist got off by supreme court, just cause the feds didn't have power to make that law they said. it's interesting whether something would or at least could happen with murder. of course, it could phappen.

Edited May 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305160756' post='2240289']
im mostly just curious to see if more people would vote that the federal government should ban murder, than the exact issue with abortion. more people vote that teh federal government should ban murder than they vote that they should ban abortion. my hypothesis is correct. the real debate i'd like to see, that i wouldn't expect people to know to read my mind, is why one is higher than the other. particularly the peopel who voted differently should say why.
unless this issue just compelled people who otherwise wouldn't vote, to vote, and there's no inconsistencies.

the issue about sovreignty and states rights i assumed would pop up, and is an interested issue, though, particularly about murder.

there's been laws against rape by the feds, then nothing by the state, and then the rapist got off by supreme court, just cause the feds didn't have power to make that law they said. it's interesting whether something would or at least could happen with murder. of course, it could phappen.
[/quote]


1. I am against the Fed having authority over murder, I am agaisnt the fed havving authority over abortion. Even if a constitutional amendment were to be passed that acknowledged the unborn as persons I would hope that the punishment for murdering them would be left up to the states. We are a Union of Soverign State's not a single unified one.



2. What are you talking about... all states have had laws on rape, was this some particular definition? A civil rightscase? can you give some details?

Edited May 12, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[CatherineM]

The feds do have laws against murder. Tim McVey was executed by the feds, not by Oklahoma.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1305170862' post='2240373']
The feds do have laws against murder. Tim McVey was executed by the feds, not by Oklahoma.
[/quote]


Thqat only applies to federal agents in the act of doing their duty, and on military bases and the like. And on the high seas. It is not generally applicable.

[havok579257]

the federal government should have a ban against murder. it should not be left up to the states. history has shown that individual states or a combination of states do not always follow moral law. God's moral law trumps all other laws. if history has shown states to not always be able to follow moral law, then the government has the right to enact certain laws that perserve moral laws. laws such as against murder, rape, slavery and so on.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305213667' post='2240475']
the federal government should have a ban against murder. it should not be left up to the states. history has shown that individual states or a combination of states do not always follow moral law. God's moral law trumps all other laws. if history has shown states to not always be able to follow moral law, then the government has the right to enact certain laws that perserve moral laws. laws such as against murder, rape, slavery and so on.
[/quote]


History has shown thatthe Federal government is happy to put aside the moral law all too easily. Just becuase something is the moral law does not meananyone canjust make a law about it, for that, one must have authority. For example, abortion is murder, it is against the moral law but me and mybuddies can't get together and just make a law about it,becuase we lackthe authority to do so. The federal government lacks the authority toregulate murder.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305262245' post='2240738']
History has shown thatthe Federal government is happy to put aside the moral law all too easily. Just becuase something is the moral law does not meananyone canjust make a law about it, for that, one must have authority. For example, abortion is murder, it is against the moral law but me and mybuddies can't get together and just make a law about it,becuase we lackthe authority to do so. The federal government lacks the authority toregulate murder.
[/quote]

Actually, i'm pretty sure that through the Elastic clause, the federal government can make any law deemed necessary and proper. I'm not sure how a ban of murder wouldn't be a necessary and proper thing.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305262348' post='2240740']
Actually, i'm pretty sure that through the Elastic clause, the federal government can make any law deemed necessary and proper. I'm not sure how a ban of murder wouldn't be a necessary and proper thing.
[/quote]

No they can't. They can make any law that is neccessary and proper to accomplish their assigned powers.


The sentence is such:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Regulation of Murder is not one of the foregoing powers.

[Don John of Austria]

triple post.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

triple post

Edited May 13, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305263134' post='2240751']
No they can't. They can make any law that is neccessary and proper to accomplish their assigned powers.


The sentence is such:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Regulation of Murder is not one of the foregoing powers.
[/quote]

Wow can't believe i never responded to this.... well going back up (to the forgoing powers) providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare are listed. So i would say (unless you are arguing that something needs to be explicitly spelled out for the government to have that power) that murder, might/could fall under federal jurisdiction. Now, do i think that this is necessary? Not really, but I think that if it was necessary (ex. state decriminalizing murder) then i would say that the federal government stepping in and making a national murder law would be fine. Now would this specific situation ever happen? No, but I think it illustrates the point i'm making.

[dairygirl4u2c]

not sure if the case laws have change but here are some cases:

feds can't ban murder and related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Harris

here is a newer case where the woman couldn't file a civl suit based on federal law, given the law was found unconsittutional as congress not having the authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison

im pretty sure there's a case where the feds enacted a criminal law statute against rape, when the state didn't, and then the criminals got away with it when the court invalidated the federal law. i'll hav to look more. in any case we see there's imilar enough case law out there.

it's an interesting question how much authority the feds should have. it's easy to say 'they should have the power' hwen it's something yo uwant done, but when it's not, you would be against it, often. murder seems clear enough to me as wrong and not controversil anyway that it should be banned by feds, and then things that are more controversial, left to the states, to respect their opinion on it. sometimes it might be clear to be, but still controversial, and there's ways it's not always so clear what should be the federal role, or maybe others will disagree with what should or shouldnt be banned federally. but.

[Amppax]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1306992204' post='2249083']
not sure if the case laws have change but here are some cases:

feds can't ban murder and related:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Harris"]http://en.wikipedia....tates_v._Harris[/url]

here is a newer case where the woman couldn't file a civl suit based on federal law, given the law was found unconsittutional as congress not having the authority
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison"]http://en.wikipedia....tes_v._Morrison[/url]

im pretty sure there's a case where the feds enacted a criminal law statute against rape, when the state didn't, and then the criminals got away with it when the court invalidated the federal law. i'll hav to look more. in any case we see there's imilar enough case law out there.

it's an interesting question how much authority the feds should have. it's easy to say 'they should have the power' hwen it's something yo uwant done, but when it's not, you would be against it, often. murder seems clear enough to me as wrong and not controversil anyway that it should be banned by feds, and then things that are more controversial, left to the states, to respect their opinion on it. sometimes it might be clear to be, but still controversial, and there's ways it's not always so clear what should be the federal role, or maybe others will disagree with what should or shouldnt be banned federally. but.
[/quote]

Good point, i'm just derpin over here. Interesting stuff

[rkwright]

Since the poll is asking about "the ideal" situation, I still went with the states.

Its been a while since I took constitutional law, but I don't see how the feds could outlaw murder nationally - its an inherently local act. Crime has always been a local issue, with some exceptions that touch on national policy.

From a practical stand point, talk about a nightmare logistically to have the feds handle all murders. They don't have the funds to handle what they have now.