Skip to comments.
Bond v. U.S., A Most Important Victory for Federalism
Pajamas Media ^
| June 18th, 2011
| Clarice Feldman
Posted on 06/20/2011 12:02:57 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
To: Idabilly
I hope you’re wrong but Bean says you’re probably right.
41
posted on
06/20/2011 10:03:15 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Idabilly
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.
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.
42
posted on
06/20/2011 10:08:47 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Idabilly
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)... 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.
43
posted on
06/20/2011 10:08:53 AM PDT
by
Ken H
To: Ken H
Liberals have no principles... period! I don't deal with absolutes. Liberals fighting liberals about the application of the 10th amendment when it concerns their prize water bong, is gloves off indeed, but holds little value to me. However, it can be said, that it does further my goal of neutering fedzilla.
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.
44
posted on
06/20/2011 10:34:02 AM PDT
by
Idabilly
(If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?')
To: Still Thinking
Oh yeah, forgot that Stevens left. In any case, Justice Thomas is the only one who seems interested in challenging Wickard. Scalia gave full throated endorsement to it, so I don't see where the votes are to restore the original Commerce Clause.
45
posted on
06/20/2011 10:45:27 AM PDT
by
Ken H
To: Ken H
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.
46
posted on
06/20/2011 10:50:02 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: Idabilly
Liberals fighting liberals about the application of the 10th amendment when it concerns their prize water bong, is gloves off indeed, but holds little value to me. However, it can be said, that it does further my goal of neutering fedzilla. 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.
47
posted on
06/20/2011 10:56:04 AM PDT
by
Ken H
To: ForGod'sSake
INDIVIDUALs???
Right up there with Magna Carta!
48
posted on
06/20/2011 11:38:29 AM PDT
by
Elsie
(Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
To: green iguana
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. 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.
To: ForGod'sSake
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.
To: Lurking Libertarian
Sorry, my mistake. She has standing to bring a defense based on 10th Amendment grounds. Again, this is all well and fine, but I'll still withhold judgment until I see this or another case based on a usurpation of rights under the 10th Amendment succeed.
To: central_va
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.
52
posted on
06/20/2011 2:02:17 PM PDT
by
ichabod1
(Nuts; A house divided against itself cannot stand.)
To: ForGod'sSake; thecodont; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Hotlanta Mike; Nepeta; Plummz; Bikkuri; ...
Article, then # 2 , and # 23.
Thanks, thecodont.
53
posted on
06/20/2011 2:15:59 PM PDT
by
LucyT
To: LucyT
I’m awaiting Mark Levin’s comments on this.
54
posted on
06/20/2011 2:41:58 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
(Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
To: ForGod'sSake
"
I think theres a pretty strong case against the muzzie in the white hut."
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
55
posted on
06/20/2011 3:09:11 PM PDT
by
rxsid
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
To: 50mm
"
This could lead to the end of bad statist law on everything from the coming ban on 100w incandescent bulbs to obamacare."
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.
56
posted on
06/20/2011 3:14:46 PM PDT
by
rxsid
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
To: rxsid
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.
57
posted on
06/20/2011 3:43:31 PM PDT
by
50mm
(Action speaks louder than words, but not nearly as often.)
To: Ken H
That's good, but how do you get past the following, which is the current SCOTUS view of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause? 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.
58
posted on
06/20/2011 3:47:43 PM PDT
by
ForGod'sSake
(You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
To: Still Thinking
I dont 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. 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.
59
posted on
06/20/2011 4:06:48 PM PDT
by
ForGod'sSake
(You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
To: Idabilly
60
posted on
06/20/2011 4:23:41 PM PDT
by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson