Some self-proclaimed libertarians and constitutionalists maintain that crime merits prosecution at the federal level. With rare exception, there is no constitutional support to justify their claims.
Yes, the government is supposed to protect life, but there is no specific amendment of the Constitution that empowers the federal government to have jurisdiction on common crimes like theft, fraud, or murder.
Instead, the Founders explicitly warned against giving the federal government the power to deal with common crimes.
According to the late libertarian icon Harry Browne, “All crime is local. It occurs in the jurisdiction of a police department or sheriff’s department somewhere. The Founding Fathers wisely provided no Constitutional role for the federal government regarding common crimes of any kind.”
Browne concludes that a federal police force makes you less safe. In fact, the Founding Fathers would be shocked to see today’s federal police forces — such as the FBI, the BATF, and the DEA.
Of course, there are a select few crimes that the federal government does have jurisdiction on. National defense is a specifically outlined constitutional function of government, so acts against federal employees are punishable. Additionally, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 gives the federal government jurisdiction on piracy and this same section (Clause 6) gives the feds jurisdiction on counterfeiting. And Article 3, Section 3 gives the federal government authority on treason.
However, the federal government should have no jurisdiction on abortion. The RLC Statement of Principles says about abortion, “We support a resolution of this issue through the proper judicial and legislative channels specified in the Constitution.”
The proper constitutional channel is the Tenth Amendment, which gives powers not outlined for the federal government to the states and to the people. Thus, overturning Roe v. Wade would not only return authority to their proper jurisdiction, but it would also empower states and individuals to decide the proper course of action on the controversial issue of abortion.
If you support limiting the size and scope of government, then you can’t rely on the federal government to protect us from crimes like abortion. Crime and the protection of life should not be federal issues.
Think about it this way: The federal government does not deliver your mail on time. Why would you want to trust them on issues of life or death?
More importantly, they have no constitutional authority to protect your life, other than via national defense.
On August 12th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Aaron, you are talking with misguided “Ron Paul supporters” or you are fabricating them. Ron Paul has argued for years that abortion should be a state’s rights issue. He has also decried the federalization of what previuosly had been state crimes.
On August 12th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
I keep hearing from Ron Paul supporters reduce the size and scope of government. On abortion the only desire I have heard on the federal level is a desire to see the outrage Roe v Wade overturned and from some, an amendment specifically dealing with abortion.
On August 12th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
You are so very correct. The entire 20th century has been the addition of new federal powers that would have shocked the Framers. You talk to people and they voted in the federal election but can’t even name their state officers. We must get back to being “The United STATES of America.” It won’t happen overnight, much to our chagrin, but each step towards more local government and less federal interference is a “step in the right direction.” Libertarians, being highly offended by the over-reach of the feds, often want it all right now. Sorry, gang, but the world doesn’t work that way. Find and support those that move the bar in the right direction. That will encourage others that will move the bar even further.
On August 12th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
The first sentence of this article seems to not make any sense.
On August 12th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Aaron, The two previous comments are just plain silly and I hope you disregard them. Specifically, why accuse someone you don’t even know of “fabricating” something. It so reminds me of “Bush Lied, People Died” where a LIE is an intentional mis-statement and, unless the person somehow can read minds or has the accused stating their intentions openly, this is all assumption. Bob assumes. As for Dave, it’s common practice for fools to say a person’s writing sucks and never specify exactly why. Who knows why they do it, but they do!
On August 13th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
And I think you changed the text of this post to eliminate your reference to Ron Paul’s followers. Why does this post still have Ron Paul listed as a search tag when his name is no longer even mentioned in the post?