USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #6: FIE Politics

[arc]

Strictly speaking, under the Nationality Principle if you are a US national, our laws attach to you wherever you go; it's still stricto sensu illegal for an American to smoke pot in Amsterdam, or drink under 21 in a country with a lower drinking age.

Would these things ever be prosecuted? Obviously not. Does it give extra leverage to chaperones? Sure.

PM for citations.

While the United States has an international reputation for excessive extraterritorial application of its laws, the above statement is incorrect, insofar as unless expressly indicated to the contrary (e.g., laws criminalizing Americans travelling to foreign countries for the purposes of engaging in sexual relations with minors), American criminal laws do not have effect beyond the territorial jurisidiction of the United States, nor (again, unlss expressly indicated to the contrary) do our courts have jurisdication to adjudicate disputes arising outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. ... i.e., application of the "territoriality principle" ...

[HDG]

While the United States has an international reputation for excessive extraterritorial application of its laws, the above statement is incorrect, insofar as unless expressly indicated to the contrary (e.g., laws criminalizing Americans travelling to foreign countries for the purposes of engaging in sexual relations with minors), American criminal laws do not have effect beyond the territorial jurisidiction of the United States, nor (again, unlss expressly indicated to the contrary) do our courts have jurisdication to adjudicate disputes arising outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. ... i.e., application of the "territoriality principle" ...

Skiriotes v. Florida look it up.
Blackmer v. US look it up.

Your statement also ignores the effects doctrine of the territoriality principle whereby acts engaged in outside of the US that have their intended effects here have also been found to be w/in our jurisdiction. ALCOA v US.

[Philistine]

Skiriotes v. Florida look it up.
Blackmer v. US look it up.

Both cases deal with a statue expressly given extraterritorial effect. There is no such expression in underage drinking laws (at least those with which I'm familiar).

Your position seems to suggest that anyone gambling in Las Vegas or Atlatic City would be in violation of their own state's laws against gambling.

Similiary, Pennsylvania citizens driving 75 mph on a road in Texas where the speed limit is 75 would be in violation of Pennsylvania law.

As the Court said in Blackmer: " By virtue of the obligations of citizenship, the United States retained its authority over him, and he was bound by its laws made applicable to him in a foreign country." (Emphasis added).

So the kiddies are safe from arrest in the US if they drink where legal in a foreign country. Whether they are safe from the parents is a different question....

--Philistine

[KD5MDK]

HDG, are you an attorney?

[HDG]

HDG, are you an attorney?

Professor -- maybe just not a very good one.

[bigdawg2121]

You never *knew* about an incident.

And I give my vote for Inq as official Overseer of the Youth, that should keep 'em quiet! They'll all be fast asleep after an hour of "Back in my day, you had to wear WHITE" stories.

Amen to that. The liklihood is more that you didn't know; someone did something to break the rules or at least tried to on general principle with a group that size. That being said, as one of those kids that has definitely been treated like the "red-headed stepchild"* by most of the rest of the US contingent at international events, I think it's possible that those traveling separately or unsupervised behave better. Lord knows I did.


HDG: While looking at the cases cited from a purely "I worked at a law firm once but don't know a tort from a torte from a hole in the ground" perspective, it seems that ARC is right BUT is this particular area one that you teach/may have additional perspective on?