Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
130. That's extremely misleading
Mon Nov 26, 2018, 10:58 AM
Nov 2018

I'll take one example, just to demonstrate how misguided your post is here.

There is a federal "murder" statute - 18 U.S. Code § 1111

But, here's what it says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder


(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life


Now, do you notice that qualifier? "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States"?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/7

18 U.S. Code § 7 - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

You can read the whole list, but these examples should flesh out the point. We're talking about places under direct federal control - national parks, federal facilities - or in international waters and US flagged vessels:

(1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(2) Any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, or any of the waters connecting them, or upon the Saint Lawrence River where the same constitutes the International Boundary Line.
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
(4) Any island, rock, or key containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States.
(5) Any aircraft belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or any State, Territory, district, or possession thereof, while such aircraft is in flight over the high seas, or over any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State.
(6) Any vehicle used or designed for flight or navigation in space and on the registry of the United States pursuant to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, while that vehicle is in flight, which is from the moment when all external doors are closed on Earth following embarkation until the moment when one such door is opened on Earth for disembarkation or in the case of a forced landing, until the competent authorities take over the responsibility for the vehicle and for persons and property aboard.
(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.
(8) To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States.
(9) With respect to offenses committed by or against a national of the United States as that term is used in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act—
(A) the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership; and
(B) residences in foreign States and the land appurtenant or ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for purposes of those missions or entities or used by United States personnel assigned to those missions or entities.


Posting a list of sections from 18 USC like that and saying "There's a federal law against murder" is highly misleading. Yes, 18 USC is the federal criminal code. No, not all of the offenses listed there have significant territorial scope in the United States. Basically it is "places in the US which aren't necessarily under the control of any state, but are under the control of the federal government".

The federal FGM law could be similarly limited to the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the US, and it wouldn't apply to what happened in this case.

That's fucked up pscot Nov 2018 #1
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman...hope his career nosedives with this ruling Merlot Nov 2018 #2
He appears to be a Libertarian extremist rpannier Nov 2018 #18
Apparently you don't understand the reason for the decision. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #101
This message was self-deleted by its author bobGandolf Nov 2018 #105
I understand that FGM is never acceptable. Merlot Nov 2018 #110
Of course it isn't. But there are legal remedies that work and ones that don't. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #112
This can only seem reasonable if you don't really care about the problem. bloom Nov 2018 #128
I didn't write the Commerce Clause. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #131
Okay. Cut off his penis and see how he likes it. nt DURHAM D Nov 2018 #3
Without any pain meds. alwaysinasnit Nov 2018 #7
He can have an aspirin. DURHAM D Nov 2018 #9
That's probably a good idea. Crazy people should not be allowed to carry weapons. lagomorph777 Nov 2018 #76
Well it is evident that he doesn't have any testicals making the operation quick easy. olegramps Nov 2018 #79
It must be appealed. whathehell Nov 2018 #4
agree. nt spooky3 Nov 2018 #6
Yes, or else we wont be laughing whathehell Nov 2018 #8
On the law, specifically the application of the Commerce Clause, the judge was correct. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #102
Whatever whathehell Nov 2018 #114
Elections Have Consequences, Including the Gift of Misogynistic Federal Judges dlk Nov 2018 #5
Yes they do ...and people will learn they HAVE to vote or they will have more of this Fullduplexxx Nov 2018 #72
That is why WE NEED A VIABLE CANDIDATE - Beto for 2020 - PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION .. .. iDOcareDoyou Nov 2018 #84
This is against the girls' will. It is assault & battery with bodily injury. CaptainTruth Nov 2018 #10
There is no federal law against assault and battery jberryhill Nov 2018 #23
There is a federal hate crime law. pnwmom Nov 2018 #62
You think they should appeal on what basis? jberryhill Nov 2018 #71
Yes, and as was pointed out in another thread, The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #103
Congress doesn't have the authority to pass laws against human mutilation? sinkingfeeling Nov 2018 #11
The absence of a federal law doesn't mean something is legal under state law jberryhill Nov 2018 #22
It does, but only if the statute specifies that the specific crime being prosecuted has a nexus with The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #104
What the fucking hell!?!? scarletwoman Nov 2018 #12
Identify a federal law against child abuse. jberryhill Nov 2018 #13
There is a federal law against child abuse right in the OP Takket Nov 2018 #49
What about beating children? jberryhill Nov 2018 #51
But you are moving the goalposts. S/he answered spooky3 Nov 2018 #65
I'm from Michigan Takket Nov 2018 #86
In answer to your question, Congress can do the following: jberryhill Nov 2018 #88
I like to pretend no one knows what's being discussed either. LanternWaste Nov 2018 #90
Jberryhill is correct though Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #113
You're beginning to sound like a climate change denier. X_Digger Nov 2018 #120
So... analogous... Takket Nov 2018 #124
Interstate commerce jberryhill Nov 2018 #125
It is just another example of the how states rights lead to a hodgepodge of ridiculous laws. olegramps Nov 2018 #81
So, the recreational lobster catch limit should be the same in Florida, Maine and Nebraska? jberryhill Nov 2018 #87
When you start catching lobsters in Nebraska let me know. olegramps Nov 2018 #92
Well, surely the laws concerning snow removal are the same in Florida and Maine jberryhill Nov 2018 #93
Firstly regarding the lobsters: olegramps Nov 2018 #95
I caught crabs there once jberryhill Nov 2018 #94
Have a look at the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution: The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #107
We are a union of states. X_Digger Nov 2018 #119
This decision MUST be appealed. These savages must not be allowed to continue this barbarism. 7962 Nov 2018 #14
The law is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #106
Appointed by Reagan. He did rule in favor of same sex marriage in 2014 lostnfound Nov 2018 #15
Reading his bio and articles from his 'admirers' he seems to be a Libertarian extremist rpannier Nov 2018 #19
Pursuit of happiness? jberryhill Nov 2018 #29
Who argued it did appear there? LanternWaste Nov 2018 #78
"No duh." lostnfound Nov 2018 #117
Without jumping, folks should note: elleng Nov 2018 #16
So if a religion believed in removing a lung or a kidney in children, would that be okay? lostnfound Nov 2018 #17
It would have to be against a state law. Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #38
IMO Dr Nagarwala needs to lose her medical license. LiberalFighter Nov 2018 #20
Why isn't it a civil rights violation? There is no comparable procedure pnwmom Nov 2018 #21
+++ agree. iluvtennis Nov 2018 #24
How can The case is set to go to trial in April 2019? 4du Nov 2018 #25
Because there are two other crimes remaining to be tried jberryhill Nov 2018 #50
Thank you 4du Nov 2018 #91
that's freedom of religion to you AlexSFCA Nov 2018 #26
The ruling has nothing to do with freedom of religion jberryhill Nov 2018 #28
What about a civil rights violation, as a gender-based assault? n/t pnwmom Nov 2018 #32
Here's what is frustrating about press accounts and general legal ignorance here jberryhill Nov 2018 #41
I believe you will find this article eye opening jberryhill Nov 2018 #53
Thanks. I've found a site that lists legislation by state and I'll post it.. n/t pnwmom Nov 2018 #63
"but rather engaged in a benign religious ritual..." But tell us again about what it isn't about. DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #35
Did you read the actual decision? jberryhill Nov 2018 #37
So the defense explicitly stating it was a benign religious ritual is...? DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #42
Has jack shit to do with the limits of Article I legislative power jberryhill Nov 2018 #43
You understand the line came from verbal arguments, right? Made in court? During proceedings? DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #45
I see you are a fast reader jberryhill Nov 2018 #46
I think I see what's going on here. I'm not on the judge, though I think it's the wrong decision... DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #57
No one has ever overturned a state anti-FGM law on religious freedom grounds. jberryhill Nov 2018 #58
Ok, but again, not part of any of my argument. You said religion wasn't part of this... DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #61
Rabbis do not have anything to do with a circumcision. Cold War Spook Nov 2018 #100
A mohel can be either a doctor, a rabbi or a cantor. It's whoever has the training. I was imprecise. DRoseDARs Nov 2018 #116
Thank you. Now if folks here would only read and comprehend. marybourg Nov 2018 #56
I think this will be overturned unless the defendants can prove they mutilate boys in the same way. underthematrix Nov 2018 #27
Okay then. PoindexterOglethorpe Nov 2018 #30
WTF?! sakabatou Nov 2018 #31
Reagan appointee RandySF Nov 2018 #33
Republican LogicFirst Nov 2018 #34
who apparently understands the commerce clause of the constitution. Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #40
Good luck jberryhill Nov 2018 #44
I mean, I think FGM should a crime in every state of the union Loki Liesmith Nov 2018 #52
This article is excellent jberryhill Nov 2018 #54
That's sick. Solly Mack Nov 2018 #36
Mother Trucker! benld74 Nov 2018 #39
Strangely enough, this is a good ruling jmowreader Nov 2018 #47
26 states have outlawed it jberryhill Nov 2018 #48
FGM laws by state William Seger Nov 2018 #60
My question is more basic angrychair Nov 2018 #68
That's a "basic" question with a very complex answer jberryhill Nov 2018 #75
Got you angrychair Nov 2018 #89
Here's a quick take on that jberryhill Nov 2018 #83
I haven't read the opinion Sgent Nov 2018 #69
Gonzales was decided upon A DAY IN THE LIFE Nov 2018 #80
FGM article Takket Nov 2018 #55
This is obviously a conservative judge who refuses to give any creedence to the RDANGELO Nov 2018 #59
So in the last 24 hours, torture, mutilation, and state sanctioned murder are apparently OK now. Initech Nov 2018 #64
Interesting case! burrowowl Nov 2018 #66
If we want devout Muslim Americans to continue voting for the Democratic Party in the numbers that jcmaine72 Nov 2018 #67
Good luck with that ansible Nov 2018 #70
It's not a "Muslim" practice jberryhill Nov 2018 #73
Post removed Post removed Nov 2018 #98
Is that sort of behavior limited to Muslims? jberryhill Nov 2018 #99
What about the Roman Catholics who do it? jberryhill Nov 2018 #74
Did you miss this part of my post? jcmaine72 Nov 2018 #77
Reasoning Seems Stupid erpowers Nov 2018 #82
"How can someone say that Congress cannot make certain laws" jberryhill Nov 2018 #85
Do you ever feel like Sisyphus in some of these threads? The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #109
Not even a legal rock, a civics rock. X_Digger Nov 2018 #121
.... tammywammy Nov 2018 #96
Have a look at the Tenth Amendment: The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #108
The Constitution is a lot like the Bible bitterross Nov 2018 #111
There's a little more to it than that jberryhill Nov 2018 #115
Federal power is limited by tenth amendment Cicada Nov 2018 #127
WTF? Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2018 #97
So it sounds like it is up to the states to make the laws treestar Nov 2018 #118
Exactly. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2018 #122
Seems like a congressional overreach. X_Digger Nov 2018 #123
WTF liberal N proud Nov 2018 #126
FGM and a whole list of 'Federal Crimes' bloom Nov 2018 #129
That's extremely misleading jberryhill Nov 2018 #130
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Federal judge finds femal...»Reply #130