|
Post by avordvet on Mar 15, 2017 5:21:36 GMT -5
Justice Thomas on why the Foreign Commerce Clause does not make Congress “the world’s lawgiver”By Ilya Somin March 12 The Supreme Court recently refused to hear Baston v. United States, a case involving the scope of the Foreign Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Justice Clarence Thomas filed a forceful dissent to denial of certiorari (beginning at pg. 28 of the linked document), arguing that the Court should have taken the case in order to pare back federal overreach in this field and “reaffirm that our Federal Government is one of limited and enumerated powers, not the world’s lawgiver.” The defendant in this case was prosecuted under a federal law that allows federal prosecutors to go after alleged sex traffickers even if the trafficking occurred outside the United States, so long as “the alleged offender is present in the United States.” Mr. Batson is a Jamaican citizen who was ordered to pay restitution for coercing a woman into sex trafficking while he was in Australia. The lower court ruled that Baston’s trafficking in Australia was within Congress’ jurisdiction because the Foreign Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate any activity that “substantially affects” trade between the US and foreign nations, including – in this case – sex trafficking abroad. Thomas outlines the troubling implications of this reasoning: www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/12/justice-thomas-on-why-the-foreign-commerce-clause-does-not-make-congress-the-worlds-lawgiver/?utm_term=.3574e62e568a
|
|