Even a liberal might find this alarming

Federal prosecutors grounded their jurisdiction to bring charges on Amish minister on the commerce clause. Leader convicted and sentenced to fifteen years.

U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach, of the Northern District of Ohio, argued in the indictment that the “Wahl battery-operated hair clippers” used in the assaults “were purchased at Walmart and had travelled in and affected interstate commerce in that they were manufactured in Dover, Delaware.”

Attorney Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average citizen now commits three felonies a day, thanks to the proliferation of federal laws and regulations. What that means is if you annoy the government, they can destroy you at will. Giving them jurisdiction to do that because you bought a something manufactured out of state (or used a telephone, or mailed a letter, etc. etc.) just pushes us further down the road to servitude.


Filed under Uncategorized

11 responses to “Even a liberal might find this alarming

  1. Al Dente

    OMG! I tore a tag off a mattress 20 years ago, I was drunk, I didn’t mean it! And I forgot to close the cover before striking a match, just this morning. They can probably get me on a “career criminal” statute.

  2. TheWizard

    I taped a game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
    It’s true, though, like OSHA in the workplace, if they want you, they’ll get you. If we submit.

  3. Anonymous Citizenette

    I’m glad this is getting some attention, although a tad too late. Stone cold killers often don’t get this kind of sentence, that’s the truth. The depths to which our country is descending is so quick and frightening, it’s hard to keep up.

  4. general.inquiries@ranopt.net

    YES. A true Liberal would indeed find this alarming.

    The thing is, there are no Liberals around these days. In your father’s day, Liberals believed in expanded personal freedom and fought for them honestly. (Granted, there were a few too many well-intended but counter-productive blunders along the way – Goldwater warned us. But we digress…) Today’s leftard is no Liberal, but rather the pack sheep of totalitarian freaks. Liberalism is dead.

    Congress can, if it had the will, to act to reign-in abuse of the Commerce ‘Claws.’

    LA, what say you?


    • I believe general.inquiries@ranopt.net is describing the definition of liberal used by Milton Friedman’s. Liberals believe in change and those we call conservative are actually the ones that want change ie back to capitalism. What we call Liberal are conservative because they want to keep the socialist utopia they have created.

  5. libertarian advocate

    The line of cases – commencing in Wickard v. Filburn – that expanded the reach of the commerce clause into the theatre of the absurd was a creature of the Progs. Today it is the source of wet dreams of power for the FDR’s lazy intellectual descendants. Initially their vast expansion of power of the commerce clause was intended to give control over the economy over to the Executive. I think the Progs of yore would themselves be surprised to see it used as a grounds for federal criminal jurisdiction. But hey let them go all in with it. Sooner or later the voters will have enough of it AND them.

    Mark Levin has discussed the line of cases at length in one of his books. Probably Men in Black.

  6. libertarian advocate

    Had forgotten that case. Once the premise was established that congress had that vastly expanded power, it’s not a stretch that Ollie’s was within it’s scope. In fact, with 220 seats, and 50% of its food sourced in interstate commerce, Ollie’s was a far more defendable application of the doctrine than was Filburn’s crop of homegrown wheat that he consumed in its entirety. SCOTUS decided that one 9-0.

  7. Fred2

    That whole “interstate” thing is a complete crock of manure. Let’s face it, if you live on the border (say in Greenwich) you could easily cross the border a dozen times a week, and that would somehow qualify you for “crimes” that otherwise wouldn’t exist for having bought something innocuous , or even moved you own child to go grocery shopping in some cases.

  8. AJ

    This is aburd in that it makes every crime a federal crime. Was the car you were driving manufactured in the state in which you reside and if so what about all the parts it contains that are necessary to make it run? What about the shoes you were wearing. Might as well just do away with states and put Big Sis and Eric Holder in charge of everything. If the purpose of justice is to make someone pay for their crime, then they should let these guys out to have another go at their victims because they clearly are paying way too much.