Article, then # 2 , and # 23.
Thanks, thecodont.
Posted on 06/20/2011 12:02:57 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
The Goldwater Institute is praising yesterday’s 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 huge—positive—implications 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.
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.
INDIVIDUALs???
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.
Well, no need to secede. Either we’ll turn it, or the commies will be successful in crashing it, and if that happens all bets are off and we can rendezvous wherever we need to.
Article, then # 2 , and # 23.
Thanks, thecodont.
I’m awaiting Mark Levin’s comments on this.
Indeed. Especially since he was (admittedly) born a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England. Inherited, by birthright, from his foreign national father.
Guy never was a "natural born Citizen," yet...that's apparently OK with the "powers that be."
I mean...who cares about Article II, section 1 clause 5 anyway?
/s
Could be they are setting up the framework to (make it much easier to) void the barrycare law when it finally makes it's way to them.
Stunning that the lefties on the bench went along with this, making it unanimous.
I don't trust Ginsburg, Kagan or Sotomayor. They'll use this ruling as precedent for using the 10th for liberal purposes. Mark my words.
Great question. From what I've been able to gather from other threads on FR re Scalia's nonsensical ruling is that he's hard core anti-drug. So much so that he must believe his personal convictions against dope overrides his duty to protect the tenets of our Constitution. Doesn't justify his ruling but it does offer some explanation -- FWIW.
IMHO, this particular ruling has the potential to reach into EVERY corner of feral government overreach. Whether it actually will or not is another question, no? To be sure it will probably yield a mixed blessing but it's the price we will have to pay if we are to abide by the original intent of our Founders. Some states will be allowed to wallow in filth as long as they are able to finance their misguided and self indulgent ways. I would truly like to see the results of THAT experiment.
JMHO, but I suspect they have allowed, maybe encouraged, bad precedent to muddle their thinking, with some Scottish law thrown in for good measure. Stare decisis has been the stomping grounds of the Dims for decades. They have created a Frankenstein's monster by establishing incoherent, not to mention unconstitutional decisions to hang their utopian dreams on. No small wonder that so many in DC hold our Constitution is such low regard. The attraction of ruling class koolaid works its magic on the aware and unaware.
I suspect some chicanery at work. Has anyone here read the entire decision?
I breezed through the whole thing and found it pretty straight forward. THAT from a non lawyer. At this point it's hard to say what evil may lurk in the hearts of the justices of the SCOTUS.
Thank you for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.