Skip to comments.Bond v. U.S., A Most Important Victory for Federalism
Posted on 06/20/2011 12:02:57 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
The Goldwater Institute is praising yesterdays unanimous Supreme Court decision in Bond v. U.S.:
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on federalism. The Court unanimously held that not just states but individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision is as radical in the direction of liberty as the New Deal was radical in the direction of socialism. Click here to read the decision.
In short, freedom advocates like us just got a green light from the USSC to bring more cases under the 10th Amendment. This will have hugepositiveimplications for freedom so long as the current constitution of the court holds.
Here is our favorite passage:
Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power. We will put this precedent to work immediately when we file our opening brief in the Obamacare lawsuit Monday, and also in our defense of Save Our Secret Ballot against the NLRB challenge, and many more cases to come.
The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counter-intuitive insight, that freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one. Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.
. . .
Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.
Both lefties and righties must have lots of dogs in this fight.
I'm a little surprised the left hasn't been all over the 10th Amendment to secure their "rights" in the several states to sodomy, dope smoking, and other forms of degeneracy they might enjoy in like minded states.
hope your thread does not get invaded by the birferz like mine did
does this mean i have standing now?
Ping - for probably the best thing to come out of the USSC in decades.
The spirit of the decision is true to the Founders, and a staggering blow to the wave of statism trying to engulf us.
Hi sloop. I meant to ping you to this thread after running across yours in the “chat” forum. I think this needs to be in news because of its potential impact and hopefully a lot more Freepers will see it. I don’t mind the birthers so much as long as a thread hijacking doesn’t take place. I think there’s a pretty strong case against the muzzie in the white hut.
i hope mark levin addresses it on his show tomorrow
That was part of the reason for the American “experiment.” Individual states could be havens for things that their neighboring states believed unconscionable, and each would enforce its own rules in its own territory.
Let's hope so. It needs to get more attention. The only "mainstream" media outlet that's touched it so far that I could find is THE WSJ.
Indeed! All of which makes me wonder if libtards may not be content to impose their degeneracy on just a few states. They must feel it necessary to compel EVERYBODY to live their misguided sense of utopia. Misery loves company or somesuch.
Now it's off to bed with me. WAY past my bedtime.
Well with this case, it looks like it will become harder for “libtards” to wish a gutter agenda upon all states by coercing it through Uncle Sam. They will have to try to make their sale 50 times and some customers will be tough.
U doo now!!
A little sanity in the court system for a change. About time, since Mexico gets to submit briefs in federal cases challenging state laws it doesn’t like.
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich
As Justice Thomas put it:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything; and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
J. Thomas, dissenting in Raich
They chose to go the “due process” route, and thereby make a whore of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court went along FOR YEARS!
If we can get a few SCOTUS justices benched who believe in a correct, more narrow application of the 14th amendment, we wouldn’t have a lot of the garbage law current in society.
You got that right. This could lead to the end of bad statist law on everything from the coming ban on 100w incandescent bulbs to obamacare.
IMO FedGov is all powerful now, the only way to stop it is to secede from it.
Thanks for the best ping in decades.
It seems that the USSC finally noticed the impending downfall of the country and decided to do something about it.
I've had visions of Durbin throwing darts at pics of his 'progressive' Justices since this came out Friday
This tells the criminal fascist syndicate occupying Washington that states and the citizens living there are not your slaves. This will infuriate obuma, the fascist bureaucracy and the criminal congress.
Time to remove the federal fascists from states. Start passing laws and increase the states’ defense budgets and training. Some of these federal pigs will need to be run back to Washington at the point of a bayonet.
I wonder why Justice Thomas gets’ it but Justice Scalia doesn’t. Scalia is a smart guy but Thomas’ logic is bullet proof. What’s up with this.
I'm glad Bond has standing to sue, but I'll withhold praise for the court until I see that she actually wins the case against the Feds on 10th amendment grounds. Or anyone, for that matter.
It looks like it was unanimous with Ginsburg & Breyer writing a CONCURRING opinion.
My view is that even the Judiciary is starting to fear Leviathan.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins,concurring.
I join the Courts opinion and write separately to make the following observation.
Bond, like any other defendant,has a personal right not to be convicted under a constitu-tionally invalid law. See Fallon, As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev.1321, 13311333 (2000); Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 3. See also North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 739 (1969) (Black, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (Due process . . . is a guarantee that a man should be tried and convicted only in accordance withvalid laws of the land.). In this case, Bond argues that the statute under whichshe was charged, 18 U. S. C. §229, exceeds Congress enumerated powers and violates the Tenth Amendment. Other defendants might assert that a law exceeds Con-gress power because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, or the Establishment Clause, or the Due Process Clause. Whatever the claim, success on the merits would requirereversal of the conviction. An offence created by [anunconstitutional law], the Court has held, is not a crime. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 376 (1880). A conviction under [such a law] is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of impris-onment. Id., at 376377. If a law is invalid as applied tothe criminal defendants conduct, the defendant is entitled to go free. For this reason, a court has no prudential license todecline to consider whether the statute under which the defendant has been charged lacks constitutional applica-tion to her conduct. And that is so even where the consti-tutional provision that would render the conviction void is directed at protecting a party not before the Court. Our decisions concerning criminal laws infected with discrimi-nation are illustrative. The Court must entertain the objectionand reverse the convictioneven if the right toequal treatment resides in someone other than the de-fendant. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 452455 (1972) (reversing conviction for distributing contraceptives because the law banning distribution violated the recipi-ents right to equal protection); cf. Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 192, 210, and n. 24 (1976) (law penalizing sale of beer to males but not females aged 18 to 20 could not be enforced against vendor). See also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 107, n. 2 (1972); Welsh v. United States, 398 U. S. 333, 361362 (1970) (Harlan, J., concur-ring in result) (reversal required even if, going forward, Congress would cure the unequal treatment by extending rather than invalidating the criminal proscription). In short, a law beyond the power of Congress, for any reason, is no law at all. Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 341 (1928).
I'm betting that Zero is throwing a major temper tantrum. I feel sorry for his little golf ball...
Important SCOTUS ruling ping.
Thanks for pinging me to this. I’m glad to see it.
It’s a very potent contrast when you quote the few passages free of the blight of stare decisis. As a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion of the kind that greatly needed in that court, it is clear that only ONE Justice is capable. For even the superb laser-like reasoning of the acclaimed Scalia is shown to be inchoate meaningless drivel in that example.
The utter deficiency of true great and bold men (or women) in the courts, in Congress, in the higher ranks of the Military and in most large establishments public and private, is best exemplified by the tolerance of having a usurper in the office of President, and by the horrible breach of duty by the Chief Justice, the Vice President standing as President of the Senate, the whole of the Congress, the whole of Electoral College, the Secretaries of State in all states and territories, and the courts before whom challenges were rejected unheard, in allowing that fraud and traitor Obama to be sworn in.
Not only that, but if you force all the states to be essentially administrative units of the national juggernaut, that single homogeneous policy can be far more intrusive than could the policy of a single state from which the citizens can flee at will. So not only does it ease tensions by allowing "different strokes for different folks", but exerts a restraining influence on the level of tyranny nationwide.
It forces the states to maintain at least a minimum level of competition to keep the productive citizens. Witness the fate of the People's Republic of Kalifornia over the past couple decades.
I don’t understand how the same court that just told us a couple weeks ago that the Fourth Amendment is written on toilet paper could come up with a decision which is to all appearances so right. I suspect some chicanery at work. Has anyone here read the entire decision?
Think about it. Does anyone actually believe that Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg or Sotameyer are going to do anything that reins in the Wickard Commerce Clause?
Boost to you babe.
I think you're correct. It maybe that the lefties on the court see future challenges to the federal drug laws. They must gain favor before hand. There have been several 'pot' distributors that have been busted by federal agencies lately (Spokane, Wa)...
Sadly, the wackjobs on the court will never cite this case for second amendment violations.
May not matter. You only need 5. Besides, who cares what Stevens thinks? He's a private comrade citizen-serf now!
I hope you’re wrong but Bean says you’re probably right.
Sadly, the wackjobs on the court will never cite this case for second amendment violations.
OTOH, you know what? A crack in the dam is a crack in the dam. If to dis-empower and disembowel the federal leviathan means the lib ganja-smokers get to have the first fruit off the tree, so be it.
IOW, having that decision on the record helps everyone.
Then how do you explain the solid block of lefties siding with fedgov in Gonzales v Raich? The problem is the Wickard Commerce Clause and this SCOTUS will not touch it, IMO.
Although I don't care what the people of California smoke, I do support my State having control of it's own border and it's own law.
Maybe legislatively, once the Pres__ent is replaced. As you know, Congress can simply remove a given issue from the SCOTUS’ purview, but The Won sure ain’t gonna sign that one.
My point is that the liberals on the Court have done nothing at all to rein in the New Deal Commerce Clause. They had a chance to support their 'prize water bong' in the Raich case, but it was Wickard uber alles.
Right up there with Magna Carta!
She does not have standing to sue. The Court's opinion made clear that it was NOT changing precedent on who has standing to sue. The issue here is that Ms. Bond didn't sue; she was prosecuted for a crime. And the Court held that standing applies to plaintiffs, not defendants; if the plaintiff (here, the U.S. Government) has standing to sue, the standing doctrine doesn't limit the defenses the defendant can raise.
The gold water institute needs to watch their words more carefully. No goverment provides any man with freedom, freedom is the gift of our creator not our Government.
Government at best protects that gift, and at worse destroys that gift along with the life to which it is intimately connected to.