to be fair i was irritated reading that as well, until i read this:
“After consulting with Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse, I will convene a hearing to explore the prevalence of this bounty practice and determine whether existing sports bribery laws should be expanded to include a prohibition on bounties.”
and this:
“Let’s be real basic about it here,” Senator Durbin told Howard Fendrich of the Associated Press. “If this activity were taking place off of a sporting field, away from a court, nobody would have a second thought [about whether it's wrong]. ‘You mean, someone paid you to go out and hurt someone?’
both are pretty good points as to why the government is considered getting involved
Originally Posted by: gbguy20
Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that the feds now get involved in anything they think is worth getting involved with.
No in the sense that this should be a federal matter. If we're talking about anti-trust law, that's one thing; its sort of the classic justification for legislative intervention, i.e., the commerce clause of Article I.
However, assault and the solicitation of same -- these are matters of criminal and/or tort law, two areas that historically belong to the states. Federal courts hear some of these, but when they do they tend to find and apply the state law to apply. Only if there is some "federal question" (e.g. antitrust, treason, whatever), is the decision going to be made using federal statutes.
Assault is a funny thing. It can be a tort (a wrong against an individual), or it can be a wrong against the state (small-s, not large-S State of Minnesota). Federal question subject-matter jurisdiction in tort comes only if there is a individual right under federal law (e.g., a law requiring compensation for a "civil rights" violation). Federal criminal law jurisdiction lies similarly, e.g. for treason, sedition, assaulting the President of the United States, etc.
But there is no general federal law either imposing liability for the tort of assault or providing punishment for the crime of assault. There are some specific assaults that have been made federal crimes (e.g., assaulting certain fed official). (The Uniform Code of Military Justice, part of federal law, also has provisions for assault.) But most have not. Most assault remains a matter of state law. And should.
I'm not even sure such a law would pass constitutional muster. It certainly wouldn't if the Ninth and Tenth Amendments had any respect remaining at all. But even recognizing that the courts will likely continue to ignore those two amendments' plain meaning, I think bringing garden-variety assault under Article I is going to bring major objection.
Could the Saints' activities be considered criminal? Yes. But that's for states (or federal courts applying state law) to decide. It's simply not a federal matter.
Or shouldn't be.
If the Moronable Senator Durbin thinks he needs to get involved, he needs to do it by constitutional amendment. Hah!
Provisional rule #64: If it's said by a politico in a committee room, it's ignorant, moronic, wrong, or some combination of the three.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)