"Valentin claims that the federal government does not have concurrent criminal jurisdiction in instances where the state has criminalized certain conduct. We disagree. Although the states have a primary role in defining and prosecuting criminal law, see Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982), both the states and the federal government are vested with the authority to define and punish offenses against their authority, see United States v. Giovanelli, 945 F.2d 479, 491 (2d Cir. 1991), and "a single act constitutes an 'offence' against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 93 (1985)."
"Valentin's claim, that the federal government lacks jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, is also without merit. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states, see U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, as well as activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995). This court has found that certain federal criminal statutes established by the Controlled Substances Act, including 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), criminalize conduct which substantially affects interstate commerce. See Proyect v. United States, 101 F.3d 11, 14 (2d Cir. 1996)(per curiam) (upholding 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1)); United States v. Genao, 79 F.3d 1333, 1336 (2d Cir. 1996)(upholding 21 U.S.C. § 846). Furthermore, congressional findings codified in 21 U.S.C. § 801 establish that even the local manufacture, distribution, and possession of controlled substances substantially affect interstate commerce. See 21 U.S.C. § 803(3),(5); see also Proyect, 101 F.3d at 12-13; Genao, 79 F.3d at 1335-36."
http://www.tourolaw.edu/2ndCircuit/May98/s96-2782.html
"Valentin claims that the federal government does not have concurrent criminal jurisdiction in instances where the state has criminalized certain conduct. We disagree. Although the states have a primary role in defining and prosecuting criminal law, see Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982),
both the states and the federal government are vested with the authority to define and punish offenses against their authority, see United States v. Giovanelli, 945 F.2d 479, 491 (2d Cir. 1991), and "a single act constitutes an 'offence' against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act." Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 93 (1985)."
Good grief, what an inane cite.
-- How are victimless 'crimes' offenses against fed/state authority?
Who gave fed/state/local governments the power/authority to create 'crime' from acts that harm no person?