Opinion ID: 771184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: resort to history

Text: 104 The majority's effort to find support through reference to the history of our nation's westward expansion and overseas acquisitions in no way informs the question here. Rather the history demonstrates simply that Congress knew how to extend explicitly the reach of the federal criminal code when it so desired. I am not persuaded by the majority's attempts to locate in the general history of our country's nineteenth century expansion evidence of an intent that a provision, which at the time covered only lands over which the United States had exclusive jurisdiction, would apply to places undoubtedly located in foreign countries. 105 The majority begins with the statement that, at the turn of the century (when the precursor to 7(3) spoke only of lands over which the U.S. had exclusive jurisdiction), Americans may have believed that, so long as territory remained unequivocally foreign, it lay outside the jurisdiction of the United States, [but] they were well aware that territory could change hands, and the United States could gain exclusive jurisdiction over territory that other countries claimed as their own. Maj. Op. at 15131. Indeed, as the majority points out, the turn of the century marked a period of great expansion in our nation's history, which suggests that this was clearly not a time when Americans thought of their borders as static or of foreign territory as sacrosanct. Id. at 15132. True enough, but, at risk of being perceived as glib, I ask, so what? Neither was this a time when Americans viewed themselves as having exclusive jurisdiction over land clearly within the territorial boundaries of a foreign sovereign. 106 This historical digression does not advance our inquiry, for we are dealing here with embassy housing and a military base, not lands that became part of our country through annexation, purchase or conquest, and as such fell within our exclusive jurisdiction. Nor are we dealing with land over which United States sovereignty or jurisdiction is disputed. See Maj. Op. at 15134 (Courts had no hesitation about treating these territories as within our exclusive jurisdiction, even though foreign governments claimed the territory as their own.). 14 The natural application of 7(3)'s precursors to such lands does not suggest, let alone conclusively determine, that Congress expected property used by the United States but located squarely and unequivocally within foreign borders 15 to fall within our exclusive jurisdiction. 16 107 The discussion of legislation extending federal criminal jurisdiction to territory under Indian control and islands claimed by Americans for their guano deposits also fails to provide support for the majority's decision. See Maj. Op. at 15132- 34. 17 Rather, these acts further demonstrate that when it so desires, Congress knows how to make explicit its intent to include lands within the reach of the federal criminal code. In fact, the majority underscores this conclusion by observing that when the United States claimed territory far beyond its borders, Congress promptly extended federal jurisdiction to those areas under U.S. control. Maj. Op. at 15134. Nor is the majority's recognition that Congress understood criminal jurisdiction to extend to all lands claimed by the United States, without regard to whether they were within a particular state or even within the continental United States, Maj. Op. at 15134- 35, helpful, because the locations at issue here are not lands claimed by the United States. The history of our westward expansion, while interesting, is far afield from congressional intent in 1790 or remedial legislation adopted in 1940. To the extent we look beyond the statute, I find the legislative history far more instructive and compelling.