Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    United States X Hudson

    Uploaded by

    adrianonedel1
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1812 regarding whether US courts have jurisdiction over common law crimes. It argues the opinion in the case is insufficient and does not adequately show how this jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution, as no power over common law crimes was delegated to Congress or the courts. It maintains criminal law powers must be expressly delegated and cannot be implied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    United States X Hudson

    Uploaded by

    adrianonedel1
    4 views2 pages
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1812 regarding whether US courts have jurisdiction over common law crimes. It argues the opinion in the case is insufficient and does not adequately show how this jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution, as no power over common law crimes was delegated to Congress or the courts. It maintains criminal law powers must be expressly delegated and cannot be implied.

    Original Title

    United States x Hudson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1812 regarding whether US courts have jurisdiction over common law crimes. It argues the opinion in the case is insufficient and does not adequately show how this jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution, as no power over common law crimes was delegated to Congress or the courts. It maintains criminal law powers must be expressly delegated and cannot be implied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    4 views2 pages

    United States X Hudson

    Uploaded by

    adrianonedel1
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case from 1812 regarding whether US courts have jurisdiction over common law crimes. It argues the opinion in the case is insufficient and does not adequately show how this jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution, as no power over common law crimes was delegated to Congress or the courts. It maintains criminal law powers must be expressly delegated and cannot be implied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    United States v.

    Hudson, 7 Cranch 32 (1812)

    Commentary by Jon Roland

    The correct decision in this case is not supported by an adequate opinion, which does little
    more than assert what was common opinion, without showing how it derived logically from
    the Constitution.

    The argument is correct that the general government and its courts cannot legitimately
    exercise powers not delegated to them by the Constitution, and that the jurisdiction for
    common law crimes was not conferred by a legislative act, but omits that there was no
    delegation of power to Congress to confer such jurisdiction, or to the courts to enforce
    common law crimes in the absence of statute, in the way civil common law powers were
    delegated to them.

    Under the U.S. Constitution, there are only three kinds of criminal jurisdiction: territorial,
    subject, and personal. The national Congress has general territorial criminal jurisdiction
    only over the territory of federal enclaves created under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17. At the time of
    this case it had subject jurisdiction only over (1) treason (Art. III Sec. 3 Cl. 2), (2)
    counterfeiting (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 6), (3) piracy and felonies on the high seas (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl.
    10), and (4) offences against the laws of nations (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 10). The only subjects of
    personal jurisdiction are military personnel and militia personnel when in actual federal
    service (Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 16).

    But even within these limits, the jurisdiction is only delegated as powers to Congress to
    enact legislation. The only powers delegated to the courts are to decide civil cases and
    enforce legislation. Enforcement of criminal common law is not delegated to the courts.

    It might be argued that the criminal common law, like the civil, was incorporated into the
    Constitution in its state as of the date of ratification, if only by implication, but this
    proposition is inconsistent with the prohibitions on ex post facto laws, because any
    common law crime is essentially ex post facto, simply because it was not enacted prior to
    the offence, but only upon sentencing. It does not work to argue that a sentence in a prior
    case, establishing a precedent for offenses of that kind, creates a criminal common law that
    is not ex post facto. There is always some difference, between the circumstances of the past
    and present offense and sentence, that makes a present case different enough to cast an ex
    post facto character to the sentence in the present case.

    The opinion is also incorrect concerning the powers of contempt, contumacy, and order
    enforcement being implied by the Constitution. They should be, but the framers neglected
    to provide for them, and for the sake of consistency, this is a defect that should be corrected
    by amendment. It could reasonably be argued that criminal sanctions for contempt,
    contumacy, and order enforcement are implied powers of the above delegated criminal
    powers in cases involving such offenses, but there is no logical basis for the imposition of
    penalties, even fines, for such violations in civil cases, or, of course, for criminal penalties
    based on any of the other noncriminal delegated powers. Civil and criminal powers are
    distinct, and the latter cannot be implied by the former, nor was it considered so by the
    Framers.

    You might also like