819, 824 (9th Cir.2003) (citing United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1990), and United States v. Aikins, 946 F.2d 608, 613 (9th Cir.1990)). The Third Circuit also held that the High Seas Clause provided Congress with the authority to enact the MDLEA and criminalize drug trafficking on the high seas, regardless of whether a nexus to the United States existed. United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3rd Cir.1993). We have previously rejected the argument that the MDLEA is unconstitutional because the conduct at issue lacks a nexus to the United States. United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1035, 124 S.Ct. 2110, 158 L.Ed.2d 720 (2004); see also United States v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d 1373, 1383 (11th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). We have also observed that Congress has power
holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding statute assessing duties on costs of foreign repairs done to united states vessels to be constitutional holding that the predecessor statute to  1903 21 usc  955a did not require a nexus between stateless vessels and the united states holding that united states admiralty jurisdiction extended not only to the high seas but also to american vessels in foreign waters holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process