Federalism and September 11th - state responses

[Rebecca E. Zietlow]

I think there is a difference (at least with regard to international
terrorism) because of the role of the federal government, as opposed to
the states, in protecting our national security.  For reasons of scope
of investigation, relationship to foreign policy, and need for
uniformity and consistency,  investigations of international terrorism
should be carried out by the federal government.  If anything, the
argument about drug laws goes the other way, since basic criminal law
has historically been the function of state, not federal, governments.

Rebecca Zietlow

-----Original Message-----
From: Clanton, Brad [mailto:Brad.Clanton at MAIL.HOUSE.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:19 PM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Federalism and September 11th - state responses


Why would having both state and federal terrorism laws be any different
from, say, having both state and federal drug laws, assuming the state
laws are directed toward harmful acts that take place within the state?


Brad ClantonChief Counsel
Subcommittee on the Constitution
362 Ford House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515


-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca E. Zietlow [mailto:RZietlo at UTNET.UTOLEDO.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:36 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Federalism and September 11th - state responses


I heard on the radio this morning that the governor of Michigan is
trying to get the Michigan state legislature to enact a bill that would
make terrorism a crime under Michigan law.  As a reason for the bill, he
said that it would make it easier for Michigan to prosecute terrorists
without having to rely on existing state criminal laws.  I would be
interested to hear people's reasctions to this bill.  I seems
inconsistent with the general consensus that protecting the national
security is a function of the federal government, and inconsistent with
the creation of the federal Homeland Security Agency.  I guess Michigan
could make the argument that some terrorism is domestically instigated
and might be targeted at state governments rather than the federal
government.  Should this distinction be relevant in determining the
jurisdiction of state and federal governments in combatting terrorism?

Rebecca E. Zietlow
Associate Professor of Law
University of Toledo College of Law
(419) 530-2872

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20011025/fc6580c9/attachment.htm