FEDERALIZING CRIME, IRONICALLY, CONSERVATIVES ARE EXPANDING FEDERAL POWER.

"You don't have to make a federal case out of it."

That old saw pays respect to the elevated status of cases that come
before the federal judiciary, which was provided for in the
Constitution to tend to the legal business of the national government.

The federal courts were never meant to duplicate state courts, but the
federal courts have in recent years seen steady growth in criminal
cases, mostly for illegal drugs, which is threatening to overwhelm
their resources and, worse, change the role of the federal judiciary.

As U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt explains on Page 2 of this
section, the proliferation of drug cases is accompanied by a new
sentencing formula mandated by Congress that has reduced federal
judges to automated sentencing machines, not to mention necessitating
a tripling of federal prison capacity.

All this is the result of an annual test of manhood on crime, which
escalates with dueling rhetoric from both political parties and the
White House, to toughen penalties and create new federal crimes, thus
treading on turf belonging to state courts.

This process of federalizing criminal law is a fundamental change in
the nature of courts in the United States.

Ironically, this expansion of federal-court jurisdiction comes from a
Congress ruled by conservatives who allegedly believe in a limited
federal government. And it comes at the very time that Congress
refuses to give the federal judiciary adequate resources: Despite
increasing caseloads, Congress has authorized no new trial judges in
eight years.

If Congress continues making every crime a federal crime, creating
super drug courts without giving them adequate resources, the net
effect will be to diminish the federal courts' capacity to do the
work intended by the framers. And the idea of making a federal case
of something will take on an entirely new meaning. It will be a joke.