This year marks the centennial of the Mann “White Slave Act,” when Congress made it a federal offence to transport a woman across state lines for “immoral purposes.” Though the act is still on the books (as former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer can tell you), and has been made gender-neutral, it is usually seen as a relic of nineteenth-century moralism. In fact, no act did more to overturn the nineteenth-century constitutional order. The Mann Act was boldly challenged the idea that the Constitution limited Congress’ power the ends enumerated in Article One, section eight. It established an all-purpose federal “police power” that now permits Congress to regulate just about everything.

By 1910, Congress had already taken some steps toward the establishment of a police power—outlawing, for example, the interstate shipment of lottery tickets and of impure food and drugs. The U.S. had recently ratified a multinational treaty to stamp out the international trafficking in prostitutes. The act’s proponents emphasized that it was an attack on the big business of “commercialized vice.” The press and U.S. officials, particularly U.S. Attorney Edwin Sims in Chicago, claimed that a vast “white slave trust” was operating in the country, when in fact there was little coerced prostitution at all.

The bill raised constitutional objections in the House, often from states-rights advocates. But prostitution was so universally reviled that most overcame their constitutional scruples. Rep. William Cox of Indiana had doubts as to the bill’s constitutionality, but said that he “would unhesitatingly resolve that doubt in favor of its constitutionality on account of the enormity of the crime sought to be stopped and the evil intended to be remedied…. Who can be hurt by its provisions? None but the guilty.” The bill’s sponsor, Illinois Republican James R. Mann, claimed that the white-slave traffic, “while not so extensive, is much more horrible than any black-slave traffic ever was.” New York Representative William Sulzer denounced the “quibbling in regard to the constitutionality of the provisions of this bill. In this frightful matter I shall not allow technicalities to cloud my sense of immediate duty.” In an ominous sign of Congress’ progressive abdication of its constitutional duty, he said, “The courts must take the responsibility for its constitutionality.”

(more…)

CNN is planning to bring disgraced former New York governor on as a commentator to replace the leaving Campbell Brown- thus condoning the criminal actions of Eliot Spitzer which he has never admitted or atoned for after using his influence to avoid prosecution.

WHY WOULD CNN TRUST SUCH A MAN ?

Should CNN now be called the Criminal News Network ? Eliot Spitzer violated federal money laundering laws as well as the Mann Act, which prohibits transporting a woman across state lines for the purposes of prostitution, which a Republican New York State Supreme Court Justice was charged, convicted and jailed for in 2009. Why not Spitzer?

WHY WOULD CNN CONDONE THIS BEHAVIOR?

Eliot Spitzer also violated Federal Money Laundering laws which were reported by two New York banks (North Fork Bank and HSBC) with the U.S. Treasury department and the Internal Revenue Service after Spitzer moved large sums of cash in bank accounts he controlled. The banks reported the transactions because they looked like “structuring” transactions. A structured transaction, according to the FFIEC’s Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) exam manual, is used to evade BSA reporting and certain recordkeeping requirements. They are used to hide the source, destination or reason the money is being sent. Spitzer broke the law.

(more…)

Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer took to the New York Times OP-ED page to call for the full release of a AIG corporate e-mails to determine how and why the company crashed.

This is the same Eliot Spitzer who stonewalled attempts by the New York State Senate Committee on Investigations and the New York Commission on Ethics to obtain the E-Mails of Spitzer and his top aides surrounding the abuse of power in his using the New York State Police to spy on his political opponents. Likewise, Spitzer attempted to prevent his top aides from testifying. This man’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The idea of former New York Governor and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer criticizing the AIG bailout is ridiculous; Spitzer is responsible for the economic condition of the company for which they needed a bailout. In fact, Spitzer’s crackdown on Wall Street caused the firms to increase leverage because he took away the ability for them to make money in research and underwriting, and they looked for other ways to make money; like securitizing subprime mortgages.

(more…)