You know of late it seems Congress is churning out these Acts of Congress at an accelerated pace, Patriot Act, Clean Water Act, ect. Perhaps the best
thing to do is actually look at the definition of “Act of Congress”. After reading the rather limited nature of “Acts of Congress” it leaves a
lingering question. Why are people charged with violating some provision of a said Act in one of the fifty states(small “s”)? Well this is how the
game is played. The defendant doesn’t challenge jurisdiction hires an attorney (an agent of the court) granting jurisdiction to the court, looses
the case, and now we have case law, an end run around the Constitution.
"Act of Congress"
28 USC Rule 54c, Application of Terms,
"As used in these rules the following terms have the designated meanings. 'Act of Congress' includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and
in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession."
It is the Law
28 USC is the "Rules of Courts" and was written and approved by the Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in writing 28 USC has already
ruled upon this issue. It is the Law.
(Comment) after this information was discovered, the wording “Act of congress was changed to federal statue, around 1990 reproduced below for
clarity. Can you say obfuscation?
Rule 1(b) is composed of material currently located in Rule 54(c), with several exceptions. First, the reference to an "Act of Congress" has been
deleted from the restyled rules; instead the rules use the self-explanatory term "federal statute." Second, the language concerning demurrers,
pleas in abatement, etc., has been deleted as being anachronistic. Third, the definitions of "civil action" and "district court" have been
deleted. Fourth, the term "attorney for the government" has been expanded to include reference to those attorneys who may serve as special or
independent counsel under applicable federal statutes. The term "attorney for the government" contemplates an attorney of record in the case.
(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to these rules:
(9) "State'' includes the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(Comment) don’t get thrown by the “term” includes. In writing law its always restrictive rather than expansive limited to the examples stated
ACTS OF CONGRESS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL
144. Act of Nov. 29, 1990 (Pub. L. 101-647, §1702), 104 Stat. 4844, 18
The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which makes it a crimi-
nal offense to knowingly possess a firearm within a school zone, ex-
ceeds congressional power under the Commerce Clause. It is ‘‘a crimi-
nal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with ‘commerce’ or any
sort of economic enterprise.’’ Possession of a gun at or near a school
‘‘is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition
elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.’’
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
Justices concurring: Rehnquist, C.J., O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas.
Justices dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg.