Did the United States, under our federal-state jurisdiction as set out in our Constitution, fail to establish Watson was properly guilty of Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire under Count 1 where the only 'jurisdictional hook' was the use of the ubiquitous cell phone as part of the criminal scheme?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Question I. Did the United States, under our federal-state jurisdiction as set out in our Constitution, fail to establish Watson was properly guilty of Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire under Count 1 where the only “jurisdictional hook” was the use of the ubiquitous cell phone as part of the criminal scheme? If this assertion of Commerce Clause jurisdiction through a ubiquitous and pervasive personal technology is appropriate, doesn’t this provide for limitless federal power and the evisceration of the Tenth Amendment and its reservations of powers to the states? 2 LIST OF ALL