Release Date: May 6, 1999
THOMPSON HOLDS HEARING ON
FEDERALISM AND CRIME CONTROL
WASHINGTON, DC -- Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today
held a hearing on the issue of Federalism and Crime Control. Attached is
Thompson’s opening statement.
###
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN FRED THOMPSON
HEARING ON FEDERALISM AND CRIME CONTROL
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (MAY 6, 1999)
- Today, in our second hearing on federalism, the Committee will consider
the increasing federalization of criminal law. It is a deeply rooted
constitutional principle that the general police power belongs to the
states, not to the federal government. This was clearly articulated in the
Founding Fathers’ careful constitutional design. As Alexander Hamilton
said, “There is one transcendent advantage belonging to the province of
the state governments, . . . the ordinary administration of criminal and
civil justice.” For most of America’s history, federal criminal law was
limited to national offenses, such as treason, bribery of federal officials,
counterfeiting, and perjury in federal courts.
- Yet in this age of mass media and saturation coverage, Congress and the
White House are ever eager to pass federal criminal laws, in order, as Chief
Justice Rehnquist put it, “to appear responsive to every highly publicized
societal ill or sensational crime.” In recent years, there has been an
explosive growth in federal criminal law. A recent ABA Task Force entitled
The Federalization of Criminal Law found that of all the criminal provisions
enacted since the Civil War, over 40% were enacted since 1970. No one really
knows how many federal crimes exist, but recent estimates of 3,000 have been
surpassed by the surge in federal criminalization.
- In 1995, the Supreme Court sent a clear message to the Congress in the
Lopez case that it needs to carefully consider whether federalizing certain
crimes is consistent with the Constitution. But only the following year,
Congress, over myobjection, reenacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act. And
there is no slowing in the growing number of proposed federal criminal
offenses, many of which do not even attempt to make the case that such
crimes “substantially affect interstate commerce,” as the Supreme Court
requires. Although a more vigilant Court could help preserve federalism, it
may be difficult indeed to increase Congress’ respect for constitutional
and prudential limits to passing crime legislation.
- There is a growing consensus across the criminal justice system that the
increasing tendency to federalize crime is not only unnecessary and unwise,
but also has harmful implications for crime control. Those concerned include
prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, defense lawyers, state and
local officials, and scholars. The ABA Task Force report cites many damaging
consequences of federalization, as we will hear today.
- There will be times when enacting federal criminal laws or placing
conditions on receipt of federal criminal justice funds will be appropriate.
But in all too many instances, increased federal involvement in the criminal
law will pose more possible harm than benefit. Many leaders in the criminal
justice system are counseling restraint when Congress and the White House
consider federal crime legislation.
- We are fortunate to have a distinguished group of witnesses today. I look
forward to hearing their views.
Return to the Press
Release Directory
[Committee
Members] [Subcommittees][Special Investigation]
[Jurisdiction] [Hearings] [Press
Releases] [Sites of Interest]
This home page was created and
is maintained by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
Questions or comments can be sent to: webmaster@govt-aff.senate.gov