Because the power to punish acts, i.e. police power MUST BE granted in all cases, the fed DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY to punish ANY other acts than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

All the 19th century Constitutional discussions state the the police power was reserved to the States. 995 OF ALL FEDERAL PUNISHMENT LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If you don’t understand this, you do not understand our legitimate government or the system established by the Constitution.

The Constitution grants some police power to the feds. Those grants are found in Article I section 8 and Article 3 section3. The federal police powers include counterfeiting the current coin and securities of the US, piracies and felonies ON THE HIGH SEAS, offenses against the Law of Nations, securing Copyrights and inventions, and treason.

If the Constitution HAS TO GRANT powers to the feds to punish these specific acts, where in the HELL does the fed get the LAWFUL, CONSTITUTIONAL power to punish ANY OTHE

While the post itself was pure class warfare hate-the-rich bullshit, it *DOES* provide an excellent answer to the eternal question of “Why is it that Libertarians seem to gravitate more to the right than the left?”

Answer: because according to the ideas espoused in divadab’s comment, leftists, (and div. can’t be one because he adds the highly intellectual & obligatory ‘wingers!’ whine), leftists aren’t interested even a little in Truth, Justice, Liberty and all that. And Republicans _sometimes_ are, despite themselves.

If it was a ‘textbook” case, why did a federal judge throw out the insider trading charges, finding that no reasonable juror could possibly have found her guilty of them?

The charge was that she used inside knowledge to avoid losses of $45,000. Do you know what percentage of her net worth that is? Does it strike you as an amount she’d commit a felony over?

….and then she lied under oath to an investigator.

She was convicted of lying under oath to during an investigation into crimes for which there wasn’t enough evidence to try her, much less convict her.

I happen to think that’s bullshit. I’m not even sure it should be a crime to lie to investigators. After all, they’re allowed to lie to you.

I don’t know why you wingers feel it necessary to carry water for these people.

I can’t speak for my fellow “wingers,” but I don’t think we should ignore injustice done to wealthy people simply because they happen to be wealthy. It was a high-profile case. There’s also merit to pointing out government abuses in high-profile cases.

Aren’t there more deserving victims of “injustice” for you to champion than a couple of billionaire cheaters and liars?

Of course. Because this site never looks at injustices perpetrated on poor people. Never. Well, maybe poor white people. Every once in a while. But definitely not poor black people. Never.

I think a better question would be to ask you to explain why you’re fine with trampling on civil liberties and criminal protections when you don’t like the class, status, or income level of the accused.

I don’t buy it. Martha Stewart’s case was a textbook example of insider trading – and then she lied under oath to an investigator. These are crimes. And – unnecessary crimes – she is as rich as Croesus but still was so greedy that she cheated so as not to lose money, and then lied about it. She got what she deserved.

And so did Michael Milken – a genius who invented junk bonds but cheated to make a couple extra hundred million. He got what he deserved also.

I don’t know why you wingers feel it necessary to carry water for these people. Aren’t there more deserving victims of “injustice” for you to champion than a couple of billionaire cheaters and liars?

This is not a defense of VAWA or progressivism. I’m simply pointing out that the persecution of Ms. Sprouse does not appear to have resulted from either one of them. I doubt even that the expanded power of the federal government played a part, since I would bet that it’s been a crime to defraud the federal government since long before the Civil War, though I’m not enough of a legal historian to state that unequivocally.

I’d say that lesson was driven home very emphatically by 2 separate outrages committed by the federal bureaucracy in 1992 & 1993.

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” she added. “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.”

This, the consequence of minting Liberty coins. Her statement likely rings for 99% of the public. Scary.

http://www.fbi.gov/charlotte/press-releases/2011/defendant-convicted-of-minting-his-own-currency

Other than that, good post.