Talk:Territorial jurisdiction (United States)

Jurisdiction creep

I have deleted the section on "jurisdiction creep" because it is misleading, and probably wholly inaccurate. Although the Constitution specifies only a few crimes, it gives Congress substantial power to legislate with respect to, inter alia, interstate commerce, copyright, and collecting taxes. It also gives Congress the power to take such steps as are "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. If Congress could, for example, forbid interstate commerce in a product, or levy a tax on the sale of a product, but could not punish people who engaged in that commerce or refused to pay that tax, it would be impotent. But so long as the crime is defined under any of the powers of Congress (including the very broadly defined commerce clause power, and the power of taxation) then the executive may prosecute that crimes wherever it is committed, in any U.S. State or territory. See United States v. Morrison for an example of the limits of that doctrine. bd2412 T 03:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article could definitely use some sourcing. I think this one may take some time. Famspear (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Waiver of jurisdiction"

I'm deleting the sentence "Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction may be waived, even unintentionally, by a defendant." First, it should say "the defense of a lack of territorial jurisdiction may be waived ..." But, even if that were corrected, I can't find any support for this sentence. References say that the defense of a lack of personal jurisdiction may be unintentionally waived. If there's a citation for territorial jurisdiction, then the sentence could be restored. KHirsch (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]