Hypothetical question

[ValricoKate]

Murder is not a federal crime in most instances, it is in the realm of state crime and punishment.

What would happen if a State decided that murder of born humans would no longer be a crime in their state?
What would/could the Federal Government do (besides withhold highway funds)?

I'd like to hear your thoughts from a constitutional viewpoint.




(I am not interested in discussing abortion here, although that is what triggered this exercise.)
(I put this in General Interest because it is a totally hypothetical exercise and WP tends toward current events)

[Pudge]

I think a lot of people would move out of that state. Rapidly.

[Seanachie]

Hello V-K,

They could be charged under Federal Civil Rights violations which include murder. There are a plethora of statutes which deal with this. Actually, this question is not so hypothetical at all. One need only look to our History wherein States would not enforce their laws and the Feds stepped in. Happens every day.

'Doing away' with any State law protected by Federal Law would never trump the Federal Government from stepping into the lurch and also charging those who did away with the laws with civil rights crimes if it ever got to that dubious end result. Every State is subject to the U.S Constitution and this type of action would miserably fail Constitutional muster.

The 14th amendment sums it up well in Section 1: "All persons born or naturlized in the United States and subject to the juridiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of Life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Be well and remember the U.S. Constitution will always trump that of the States. All States have their own Constitutions. They can grant their citizens greater rights than the Federal Constitution wherein the Federal Document is silent or grants the States those rights implicitly.

Jim

[JediMindTrick]

Since we are hypothetically talking about nonsense how about we discuss what would happen if all the states gave us rockets we could fly into space in.

[Seanachie]

Since we are hypothetically talking about nonsense how about we discuss what would happen if all the states gave us rockets we could fly into space in.

Hello JediMT,

I don't find the question so far-fetched from a Constitutional standpoint. The murder of an individual or a group of individuals has happened before in this Country without any enforcement of the Law in those States which turned their backs to the rule of their own State law. It happened all too frequently (more than once is the criteria I use in regard to murder) when unbounded corruption seeks to, and trumps any law.

Anyone who seeks the knowledge necessary to understand The Constitution of this Land will get an assist from me, and I ain't no Constituitional Scholar by any definition. Seems to me the OP may be taking a journey of education or understanding. Good for her. I hope her journey on this road is rewarding. The road of knowledge has a beginning somewhere and leads to infinity with many detours along the way.

Be well and safe,

Jim

PS: I just wish I could get that dang rocket to work. Hey! Whadda Ya expect from any Government run enterprise? But I hear space travel is a very rewarding experience.

[johnrocks]

All I can say is all my firearms would be locked,cocked and ready to rock!(As in defending myself,not murdering,lol), it is a State issue though,as are most crimes.

[BillBrown]

Hello V-K,

They could be charged under Federal Civil Rights violations which include murder.

I doubt it.
Federal civil rights prosecutions are high profile grandstand cases.

The federal courts could not take on the burden of trying every murder.

[captusa]

Hello V-K,

They could be charged under Federal Civil Rights violations which include murder. There are a plethora of statutes which deal with this. Actually, this question is not so hypothetical at all. One need only look to our History wherein States would not enforce their laws and the Feds stepped in. Happens every day.

'Doing away' with any State law protected by Federal Law would never trump the Federal Government from stepping into the lurch and also charging those who did away with the laws with civil rights crimes if it ever got to that dubious end result. Every State is subject to the U.S Constitution and this type of action would miserably fail Constitutional muster.

The 14th amendment sums it up well in Section 1: "All persons born or naturlized in the United States and subject to the juridiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of Life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Be well and remember the U.S. Constitution will always trump that of the States. Many States have their own Constitutions wherein they grant their citizens greater rights than the Federal Constitution wherein the Federal Document is silent.

Jim

If there was no law against murder, how could the feds make the state enforce a law that dosen't exist and if there is no protection for anyone from murder, how could the feds claim nequal protection.
Since murder is not a federal crime the feds have no jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment DOES prevent a government agency from murdering without due process.

[Seanachie]

If there was no law against murder, how could the feds make the state enforce a law that dosen't exist and if there is no protection for anyone from murder, how could the feds claim nequal protection.
Since murder is not a federal crime the feds have no jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment DOES prevent a government agency from murdering without due process.

Hello Captusa,

Perhaps rereading the Constitution would prove an enlightening experience for any Citizen of the United States. It always is for me. The 14th Amendment makes it very clear on the superseding rights the Federal Constituition has over States' 'rights'. Perhaps you can explain how Timothy McVeigh was convicted, sentenced and put to death on the Federal Murder charges he faced in Oklahoma if there were indeed no Federal Law against murder?

This is a snipped quote from Wikipedia on McVeigh:

"On August 10, 1995, McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and eight counts of first-degree murder (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Murder).[58] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-57) On October 20, 1995, the government filed notice that it would seek the death penalty".

You can Google McVeigh or Federal Murder indictments if you so choose and happen to have the time.

Be well,

Jim

PS: The following link is from FindLaw.com on the issue of State and Federal Rights as to murder in an article entitled:
The Line Between State And Federal Criminal Jurisdiction
Two Recent Murder-for-Hire Decisions Illustrate How Blurry It Can Be

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20031015.html


Some very interesting reading is found in this article.

[Seanachie]

I doubt it.
Federal civil rights prosecutions are high profile grandstand cases.

The federal courts could not take on the burden of trying every murder.

You are quite right in some respects. The Federal Courts should not have to take on the burden of prosecuting every State's murder charges. That is not the scenario presented by the OP. Her's deals with a State doing away with the crime of murder. At that point the Federal Government would have no other choice but to step in and prosecute. The likelihood of that ever happening is next to nil as the U.S. Constitution would take precedence and negate and overturn (on a Constitutional Basis) any such repeal of this particular law.

On the 'issue': "Federal civil rights prosecutions are high profile grandstand cases".

I just wrote a post in the Overcoming Obstacles Forum here on Hannity wherein an OP asks for help in 'overcoming corruption' in a County in Texas.

Rather than being redundant and quoting myself; I will instead post the link to that post.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=62642261&postcount=7

This deals with a case of corruption that did indeed become 'sensational'. Did it become this because the Feds stepped in? Did the State's claims to have no quarter for the clue bus have any validity? Would silently and corruptly standing by with no response be considered acting in concert with this scams engineers? Or, did the notoriety come from the shocking details? You can decide if you so wish. I don't think anyone was grandstanding here. The facts are just that...ferreted out facts; discovered ONLY because the Feds stepped in as the LONE RESPONSIBLE hunting ferret.

Be well,

Jim

[merickson]

Murder is not a federal crime in most instances, it is in the realm of state crime and punishment.

What would happen if a State decided that murder of born humans would no longer be a crime in their state?
What would/could the Federal Government do (besides withhold highway funds)?

I'd like to hear your thoughts from a constitutional viewpoint.

I would adapt Bork's response to a similar question regarding marriage, if a state elects a legislature that removes the murder statue, the citizenry of that state is in more trouble (and of a different kind) than can be corrected by the federal government.

A state full of citizens that crazy has bigger problems than can be solved by government.