Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
What Utah has as a law should have no effect what-so-ever on what other States have as a law. If every State passed similar laws other States passed exactly the same, why have 50 States?
|
That's ridiculous. We don't give the Federal government jurisdiction just to prevent overlap between state laws. We reserve Federal laws to specific, narrow categories, and let states police themselves in every other way. That's why murder is only a Federal crime in specific circumstances - a run-of-the-mill murder is a state matter. And it's why lynching wasn't actually a Federal crime until recently, because the concept of "hate crimes" didn't really exist at all until recently, and only existed at the Federal level even more recently, and without a concept of hate crimes, lynching is "just" a run-of-the-mill local murder. Even with the concept of hate crimes, making lynching a Federal offense, strictly from a legal precedence standpoint, isn't cut and dry, and depends on arguing that the motivation for the murder is denying Constitutional rights, but also that many cases of lynching involve participants in groups with multi-state memberships. Lynching absolutely should be criminal, and because it kills people, has been criminal pretty much forever. Making it a Federal crime more represents cultural changes to how we consider motivation in crimes. Without the concept of hate crime, I doubt lynching would ever be treated more severely than murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
So, when you're asking why have states if they're all making the same rules, are you suggesting traffic enforcement, of all things, should suddenly become a Federal matter? Talk about government overreach - I can barely imagine the push-back people would have if traffic matters were suddenly Federally controlled.