Lawprof Rick Hills examines the topic (raise by Spitzer's problem). Go to the link if you want the explanation of when and why the commerce power covers prostitution. I want to highlight the political discussion at the end of Hills's post:
Does anyone else besides myself find the use of the Mann Act against a governor a mite disturbing, especially when enforced against someone who belong [sic] to a political party other than the President's? Given that the state governments seem completely capable of prohibiting prostitution if they wish to do so, is the enforcement of sexual morality by the federal government a completely gratuitous -- and, therefore, politically suspect -- exercise?
Of course, there are also the allegations of money laundering and perhaps mail fraud.
Also tax evasion (not by Spitzer, but by those who are making money).
But there is no claim that Spitzer defrauded the people of New York of honest services and, therefore, no role for the feds in illuminating local official dishonesty that local pols seek to shield. Of course, the governor's transgression occurred in Washington, D.C., an enclave in which the federal government has general police powers. But the feds are not enforcing any D.C. ordinance. Whose interest, therefore, are the feds serving? Not the interests of us New Yorkers: We can enforce -- or not-- our own laws against sexual hank-panky. Not the residents of D.C. The only obvious beneficiary of this prosecution is the majority leader of the New York Senate, Joe Bruno and, more generally, Republicans who have managed to eliminate a major political rival.
I think these concerns are valid, but visualize the disarray if Spitzer uses this line of argument to try to cling to power. Is this what Democrats should want going on during the presidential election season?
:.
0 comments:
Post a Comment