Skip to comments.
Sex Overseas May Fall Under U.S. Jurisdiction
The New York Sun ^
| January 26, 2006
| JOSH GERSTEIN
Posted on 01/26/2006 10:00:12 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: Lurking Libertarian
Over-arching legal authority must go to Scottish Law. What do the Scots say about child prostitution?
To: Lurking Libertarian
foreign commerce????
Oh come on now.
3
posted on
01/26/2006 10:03:15 AM PST
by
PeteB570
(NRA life member and I vote)
To: Lurking Libertarian
Sounds like sex-obsessed Gonzales is at it again. Now if only he were as obsessed with stopping illegals at the borders.
4
posted on
01/26/2006 10:06:45 AM PST
by
montag813
To: Lurking Libertarian
As repugnant as child sex tourism is, I really see no way for Congress to have authority what you do in other countries. Are they going to start arresting people who go to the Netherlands and smoke pot???
5
posted on
01/26/2006 10:12:50 AM PST
by
Lunatic Fringe
(North Texas Solutions http://ntxsolutions.com)
To: Lurking Libertarian
I guess this is the flip side of using foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution. I wonder if this appeals court will recognize the authority of, say, the French to regulate activities in the U.S. with which they are in disagreement.
To: Lurking Libertarian
There is something that doesn't pass the smell test about outlawing this by "regulating foreign commerce". Surely there is another way to criminalize pedophilia without playing legal origami. It's amazing that we can't just say that it's a felony to have sex with a child.
To: Lurking Libertarian
A federal appeals court panel yesterday upheld the government's authority to punish Americans for patronizing child prostitutes overseas, but one judge dissented from the ruling, warning that the law in question goes beyond Congress's power under the Constitution to regulate foreign commerce.
This ruling could in theory declare that all of humanity has to pay U.S. income taxes.
To: elmer fudd
There is something that doesn't pass the smell test about outlawing this by "regulating foreign commerce". Surely there is another way to criminalize pedophilia without playing legal origami. It's amazing that we can't just say that it's a felony to have sex with a child. The federal government has no delegated power to "just say that it's a felony to have sex with a child." The states have the power to say that, but not if it happens in a foreign country. So the alternatives are to either get cute with the foreign commerce clause, or leave prosecution to places like Cambodia or Thailand (which often turn a blind eye to this sort of thing).
To: elmer fudd
LOL!
Legal origami?
I'll have to remember that one!
To: Lurking Libertarian
Judge M. Margaret McKeown: Appointed by: President Clinton, April 1998
Judge Procter Hug Jr: Court: Appointed by: President Carter, 1977
11
posted on
01/26/2006 10:23:15 AM PST
by
Bob J
(RIGHTALK.com...a conservative alternative to NPR!)
To: montag813
***Sounds like sex-obsessed Gonzales is at it again.***
No not, Gonzales - the power mad US Congress.
The underlying theme of the Roberts & Alito hearings was Congress' constitutional authority to enact legislation, i.e. the Commerce Clause. IMHO the 'privacy' and 'executive power' junk was all a smoke screen. Its really about the Commerce Clause and how Alito views its limitations. Di-Fi was the only one to really tip their hand on this subject, though yesterday Durbin ranted about it in the Senate.
I'm just glad that this one judge sees it correctly,
"In dissent, Judge Warren Ferguson said a paid sex act committed abroad has nothing to do with the right granted to Congress by the Constitution "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." "The mere act of boarding an international flight, without more, is insufficient to bring all of Clark's downstream activities that involve an exchange of value within the ambit of Congress's foreign commerce power," Judge Ferguson wrote.
The surprising thing is, he's an LBJ judge.
12
posted on
01/26/2006 10:24:26 AM PST
by
Condor51
(Better to fight for something than live for nothing - Gen. George S. Patton)
To: Paul C. Jesup
This ruling could in theory declare that all of humanity has to pay U.S. income taxes. Good. Since all of humanity appears to be getting their hands on U.S. tax dollars, one way or another, it's about time they paid into the system. ;-)
13
posted on
01/26/2006 10:25:32 AM PST
by
Steel Wolf
(If the Founders had wanted the President to be spying on our phone calls, they would have said so!)
To: Lunatic Fringe
Are they going to start arresting people who go to the Netherlands and smoke pot???
I bet you they would love to do that. But first, we have to go after people searching for porn on google, by golly.
14
posted on
01/26/2006 10:26:25 AM PST
by
mysterio
To: Bob J
Judge M. Margaret McKeown: Appointed by: President Clinton, April 1998
Judge Procter Hug Jr: Court: Appointed by: President Carter, 1977And the dissenter, Judge Warren Ferguson: Appointed by President Carter, 1979.
To: Lurking Libertarian
To: Lunatic Fringe
As repugnant as child sex tourism is, I really see no way for Congress to have authority what you do in other countries. Are they going to start arresting people who go to the Netherlands and smoke pot??? Interesting problem. Reminds me of the sex offenders list which keeps growing and broadening in scope.
17
posted on
01/26/2006 10:35:22 AM PST
by
countorlock
(But thy strong Hours indignant work'd their wills, And beat me down and marr'd and wasted me,)
To: Lurking Libertarian
>>>foreign commerce
This "judge" considers child prostitution FOREIGN COMMERCE???
So it would be illegal to prosecute drug pin cartels to not interfere with FOREIGN COMMERCE???
Idiot.
18
posted on
01/26/2006 10:37:53 AM PST
by
sandbar
To: Lurking Libertarian
Alright, so how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a US courtroom that the suspect did willfully engage in a sex act with a minor while on foreign soil? Is the US Justice Department going to start offering free flights to the US for witnesses? How is it expected that a defendant has the resources required to send an investigative team to the country in question to depose the witnesses?
I abhor child exploitation in all forms, but this is a case of judicial activism, making a law mean what you want it to mean, rather than what the Constitution says it is. This is the sort of case where Alito would have dissented and then later would have been branded as supporting child sexual exploitation because of his descent.
19
posted on
01/26/2006 10:38:43 AM PST
by
Yo-Yo
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
I wonder if this appeals court will recognize the authority of, say, the French to regulate activities in the U.S. with which they are in disagreement.They already have. The Yahoo case was out of the 9th Circus.
See, generally, the 99 page opinion in YAHOO! INC. v. LA LIGUE CONTRE LE RACISME ET ý LANTISEMITISME, No. 01-17424, (9th Cir. Jan 12, 2006)
Link to a PDF of the opinion here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=title&v1=Yahoo
20
posted on
01/26/2006 10:45:52 AM PST
by
PAR35
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson