« I've got get one of these.... | Main | We're in the best of hands »
Thought on the assault on Sen. Rand Paul
18 USC §111 provides that whoever "forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties" shall be punished "where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault" with up to 8 years imprisonment for a federal offense. If the offense "inflicts bodily injury," which this clearly did, the penalty escalates to up to 20 years imprisonment.
18 USC §1114 in turn defines its coverage as "any officer or employee of the United States" when the person is engaged in "or on account of the performance of official duties."
UPDATE: Note the "or on account of" performance of his official duties. The assault doesn't have to happen on the Senate floor, if it's in retribution for his legislative actions.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
And please explain which of the granted powers gives Congress punishment authority in this case.
As Jefferson stated, I reiterate. Congress was originally granted 5 police powers, I say 6 with a seventh added in the 13th. Most amendment enforcement clauses are directed at controlling state action NOT individual actions.
19th century Constitutional writers stated over and over that the police powers were retained by the States. Congress was granted punishment power over counterfeiting, piracy on the high seas, felonies on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, treason, and IMO securing copyright and patent. To that the enforcement clause of the 13th adds involuntary servitude. Note these police powers are explicitly granted. Because some police powers were explicitly granted, the only logical, reasonable understanding of the Constitution is that police powers NOT explicitly granted were withheld. If police powers could be implied in other areas then there was no need to include any and implies those granting these explicit powers idiots. Congress does have exclusive legislation within the district, exclusive meaning in lieu of other governmental entities NOT in lieu of the Constitution. Rand Paul was NOT in DC so no laws passed for there count. Congress has no authority to pass punishment laws outside the 6-7 granted. Every federal criminal law that is not for counterfeiting, piracy on the high seas, felonies on the high seas, an offense against the law of nations, treason, securing copyright/patent, or punishing slavery is void and of no lawful authority.
So please prove me wrong. And supreme court decisions don't count if they cannot cite specific clauses granting these police powers. The SC is easily proven wrong in most of their decisions since those decisions are generally based in thin air and not on the solid evidence of the written Constitution. Judicial predilections don't count. Those are just someone's opinion and opinions are like azoles. Everybody has one and most of them stink, even mine.
I see folks cite this and that federal statute without ever considering legitimacy, where does the Constitution grant such and such power since there are no implied or inherent powers in our system of government. But then only 1 in 10,000 uses that lump on their shoulders for anything.
Yeah, makes me wonder where the congressional floor/chamber was in this event. Doesn't seem to have been a "town meeting", either. Sounds more like a state penal code issue.
Well, that's a neat theory but it's not actual Constitutional law today.
Update: It appears the narrative Paul's neighbor had a real problem with lawn debris isn't holding up well. Guy appears close to being and AntiFa.
But is lawn-mowing "official duties?"