Epstein Secrets

422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States'. Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (I I* Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 115 S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United Stalest Grego, 363 F.3d 1093 (II* Cir. 2004); United States'. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (I I lb Cir. 200

that this "constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Fjamers to ensure protection of our fundamental Id. at 552, quoting Gregory'. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The majority concluded that the statute before the Court "upsets the federal balance to a degree that render

er §2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11ih 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 12, S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United States' Orrega, 363 F.3ds1093 (11th Cir. 2004); United States Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003)

"constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundament l li erties." Id. at 552, quoting Gregory' Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The majority concluded that the statute before the Court "upsets the federal balance to a degree that renders

2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11 th Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 (2006); United States !Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (I I" Cir. 2004); United States "'Miranda, 348 17.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 20

ch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Fede I Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.") (quoting Gregory'. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1997)). Thus, Congress's power to legislate in this area is constrained by the Commerce Clause. As Lopez demonstrates

§2424(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States !Morton, 364 I3d 1300 (I l ° Cij. 2004),judgnwru vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 006); United States I Orrega, 363 I3d 1093 (116 Cir. 2004); United States91 Miranda, 348 I3d 1322 (II6 Cirj003); Unit

this "constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Namers to ensure protection of our fundamen I rties." Id at 552, quoting Gregory' Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The majority concluded that the statute before the Court "upsets the federal balance to adegree that renders