Epstein Secrets

late substantive due process. United States v Ambert (2009, CAI I Fla) 561 F3d 1202, 21 FLW Fed C 1596. Congress did not exceed its authority under Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3, when it passed 18 USCS§ 2250(a) because when sex offender traveled from one state to another, he was instrumentalit

e July 27, 2006, which was date Walsh Act was enacted; and (3) defendant's prosecution under 18 USCS § 2250(a) for violating Walsh Act did not raise U.S. Coast. art 1, § 9, cl. 3, Ex Post Facto Clause concerns because defendant was notified, at time of his conviction, that he would have to register in any n

sex offender when he crossed state lines because both statutes were constitutional; 18 USCS § 2250 was proper exercise of congressional power under Commerce Clause because Congress has broad federal power to regulate persons who cross state boundaries and, while 42 USCS § 16913 exceeded Congress's power under C

student status while remaining within state had too tenuous connection to substantial effect upon interstate commerce; Necessary and Proper Clause, U.S. Coast. art I, § 8, cl. 18, did not salvage constitutionality of § 16913 because § 16913 was not reasonably adapted means to achieve constitutional objecti

Act to defendant did not violate due process; and (3) enactment of PROTECT Act was a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the For- eign Commerce Clause. Affirmed. Ferguson, Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion. West Headnotes III Criminal Law 110 413=.18 110 Criminal Law 110I Nature and Elem

s, powers that we have consistently described as 'plenary and exclus- ive' ... This Court has traditionally identified the In- dian Commerce Clause, U.S. Coast., Art. I, § 8. cl. 3, and the Treaty Clause, Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, as sources of that power.") (citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court has c