well, that’s the rule here. It’s in the constitution. it’s the commerce thing. Fed and state courts are a bit different, but federal sentences are tougher usually. Have to serve more of it, etc.
Basically if you are crossing state lines for crimes you can be charged federally for it.
also, the internet/cell counts. so if it pings outside the state, that counts. You may argue it shouldn’t but the rule existed before the internet and that’s how it fits right now and nobody updated that.
that said, it makes a lot of sense rather than states fight each other in court over cases to have federal cases. I don’t know how often there are federal and state charges, probably rather rare but this case got so publicized I’m not surprised.
Thanks for the explanation. It’s still seems utterly idiotic. How is justice served by arguing one crime is worse than another given all aspects are the same except in one the dude took the GW bridge. It makes no basic sense of justice.
The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of cannabis. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration were assigned to break up California’s medical cannabis co-ops and to seize their assets. That was the result of the fact that federal law pre-empted, under the Supremacy Clause, the law of California. The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one’s locally grown cannabis for medical purposes affects the interstate market of cannabis and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption.
That argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because of the aggregate effect of individual consumption on the government’s legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market.
Literally fucking everything the feds want to do is covered by the commerce clause.
We’re definitely getting another lol law moment when Trump takes office and Giuliani’s like ‘none of this applies now, my friends the king.’ And the lawyers are like ‘no you can’t do that that’s not how it works.’ And the courts are like, ‘welp nothing we can, Trump is king.’
Time for further proof how wrong you are about my alleged wrongness.
With the beginning of the new year, I can now claim another victory against the LOL Law crowd. I won my $100 against @grue that Biden would not be impeached. The beneficiary of the ignorance of LOL Law crowd will be the organization that did something about Trump besides shitpost:
The fact that you think this makes you right about trump is fucking hilarious.
You have been 100% wrong about him at every step of the last 10 years and continue to be utterly clueless about the failings of the US system under him.
Not a big enough lol if it reached the moon. This charade where he doesn’t even attend his “sentencing” is worse than not having it. Total farce of a legal system.