"jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state

"jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state

"jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state

"jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state

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

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

"jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state

'jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state

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

"jurisdictional hook," the hook is too weakly connected to the problem (sexual crimes against minors) to sustain the statute as a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power. Questions about the nature of federalism, and, specifically, just how far the federal government may go into matters of traditionally state