Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did the Supreme Court Tip its Hand on ObamaCare?
American Thinker ^ | June 23, 2011 | Frank Miniter

Posted on 06/22/2011 11:51:08 PM PDT by neverdem

 

On June 16 the U.S. Supreme Court sent a case (U.S. v. Bond) back to a lower court on Tenth Amendment grounds. The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy (the Court's "swing vote"), hints that ObamaCare just might be ruled unconstitutional. How? Justice Kennedy's opinion in U.S. v. Bond showed he still believes the federal government is restricted by the enumerated powers as listed in the U.S. Constitution. His viewpoint was expressed in a case the Lifetime network is probably making a movie about right now.

            In this case, Carol Anne Bond learned that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant. Bond thought that was great until she found out that the baby was fathered by her husband of 14 years, Clifford. Naturally, Bond, a microbiologist residing in suburban Philadelphia, wanted revenge. She began in the usual way by threatening Haynes over the telephone: "I [am] going to make your life a living hell." Subsequently, Bond's attempts to make Haynes life a "living hell" got her convicted for harassment in 2005.

            Bond, however, was still out for revenge. Bond next smeared poisonous chemicals, such as an arsenic-based chemical (remember she is a microbiologist) on Haynes' car door handle, mailbox, and other places. Haynes got a burn from the chemicals and reported it to the police. The police, however, didn't know what to make of Haynes' claims. But then the U.S. Postal Inspection Service got involved because the mailbox had been tampered with. After its investigation, Bond was charged with a violating U.S. Code, Section 229, a statute that then prompted federal prosecutors to also throw the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention at Bond.  Bond subsequently pleaded guilty in federal court and got a six-year sentence and nearly $12,000 in fines and restitution.

The use of this federal treaty on chemical weapons, however, was a bit much, so Bond's lawyers appealed by arguing that using the federal government's Chemical Weapons Convention against Bond is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.")

On appeal, the 3rd Circuit then ruled that Bond lacked standing to challenge her conviction, finding that only states, not individuals, can bring challenges under the Tenth Amendment.

With this constitutional question in the balance, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case and heard it last January.  Former Solicitor General Paul Clement represented Bond at the Supreme Court hearing.  Clement argued that "the structural provisions of the Constitution are there to protect the liberty of citizens." He articulated that states have the authority to resolve their own criminal justice cases -- some international treaty on chemical weapons shouldn't preclude this state right.

Which gets us back to Justice Kennedy and his tell on how he might rule on ObamaCare.  Justice Kennedy said at the hearing: "The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty; and if that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can't it be raised?" This made court watchers wonder if this might forecast how Justice Kennedy might vote on ObamaCare.

Then, on June 16, the Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Bond that the U.S. Congress overstepped its authority by infringing on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. (Bond, however, will have to make and win the Tenth Amendment argument in a lower court, as the Supreme Court only sent the case back down to the lower court while saying that Bond can fight her conviction on Tenth Amendment grounds.)  

So here's where it gets interesting for those wondering how the Court will vote on ObamaCare. The Obama Administration's argument is that it can mandate that people buy government-approved health insurance under the power the Constitution's Commerce Clause (The U.S. Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes....") gives the federal government. The Commerce Clause has been viewed to be an expansive power by the Supreme Court; for example, the Court found in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that the federal government can even regulate whether a farmer can grow wheat for his chickens. But the Court has never found that the government can mandate that citizens actively do something, such as purchase a product. This is why Justice Kennedy's opinion expressed in U.S. v. Bond is interesting, as it indicates his preference for state rights under the Tenth Amendment.

For example, in his opinion on U.S. v. Bond, Kennedy quoted the Supreme Court case New York v. U.S. (1992): "Federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." And then Justice Kennedy said, "[Federalism] protects the liberty of all persons within a state by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions.... By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake. The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the states."

So in U.S. v. Bond Justice Kennedy found that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. Let's hope he'll do the same when Obamacare makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frank Miniter is the author of Saving the Bill of Rights


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; anthonykennedy; judgevinson; obamacare; scotus; statesrights; tenthamendment
Saved from ObamaCare by Anthony Kennedy on the basis of the Tenth Amendment! I won't be surprised. Kennedy has been fairly libertarian.
1 posted on 06/22/2011 11:51:12 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

Ping


2 posted on 06/22/2011 11:52:39 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; repubmom; HANG THE EXPENSE; Hotlanta Mike; Nepeta; Plummz; Bikkuri; Fantasywriter; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Did the Supreme Court Tip its Hand on obummerCare?

Saved from obummerCare by Anthony Kennedy on the basis of the Tenth Amendment! I won't be surprised. Kennedy has been fairly libertarian.

3 posted on 06/23/2011 12:16:14 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Still seems to me that calling the growing of your own crop to feed your own animals "commerce between the States" is an absurd stretch already...undermining my confidence in the ability of the Supreme Court to follow the US Constitution.

I am hoping that some small glimmer of confidence might be restored soon.

4 posted on 06/23/2011 12:30:09 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What this article fails to mention is that this was a 9-0 win for the 10th Amendment. That bodes very ill for Obamacare.


5 posted on 06/23/2011 12:54:24 AM PDT by Tom D. (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
What this article fails to mention is that this was a 9-0 win for the 10th Amendment. That bodes very ill for Obamacare.

"Then, on June 16, the Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Bond that the U.S. Congress overstepped its authority by infringing on powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment."

Huh?

6 posted on 06/23/2011 1:04:14 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

More importantly, this guts obastard’s attempt to back door gun control using the UN’s Small Arms Treaty...


7 posted on 06/23/2011 1:18:07 AM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: piytar; Carry_Okie
More importantly, this guts obastard’s attempt to back door gun control using the UN’s Small Arms Treaty...

I'm no lawyer, but IIRC, a two thirds vote of the Senate, if they have a quorum, then they can override the Bill of Rights.

8 posted on 06/23/2011 1:33:17 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I'm no lawyer, but IIRC, a two thirds vote of the Senate, if they have a quorum, then they can override the Bill of Rights.

(1) The general legal consensus is no, it can't with respect to "fundamental rights." Thanks to the last two big SCOTUS cases on the 2nd, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

(2) This case ruled that the 10th protected an American from a law passed under the auspices of the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention," a Senate ratified treaty. So no again.

9 posted on 06/23/2011 1:39:57 AM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I intimated this in another thread, but IMHO...

SCOTUS is hearing We the People over the past few years and is aware of the far-left’s agenda of the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, even if they don’t admit it to themselves. Which kind of encroaches on their territory - the U.S. Constitution. Even if a SC Justice is liberal, they’re still personally very much in need of the preservation of the U.S. Constitution. In that respect, the SCOTUS is a sleeping bear that has no army and no police to enforce it’s rulings; it knows that it relies on Executive branches for enforcement.

Courts are very willing to allow and even force legislatures to over-regulate and over-spend in a “give the people what they want” mindset - until economic catastrophe looms and they envision the opposite sentiment having a powerful contingent amongst the citizenry.

I think the SCOTUS is going to be moving towards a Constitutionalist “revival” period. Of course, in the end, as some power is returned to States where it belongs, States are beginning to compete with each other for citizens and businesses like never before due to modern mobility. And it will be the stinging rod of failure that corrects State legislatures that over-regulate and over-spend, which requires them to over-tax their citizens and beg for Federal crumbs. Some States will choose to model their laws in the minimalist fashion of the U.S. Constitution, others will bury their citizens in legal spaghetti. In any case, hopefully the SCOTUS will start very vigorously ripping the teeth out of the Federal bureaucracy, thereby helping to preserve it, as the SCOTUS restores the U.S. Constitution to it’s purpose of binding together the States as a nation of free citizens rather than trying to implement a Federal bureaucracy that can be all things to all people.


10 posted on 06/23/2011 2:04:13 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (PC's Tavern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Kennedy was also, however, one of the crucial swing votes in nullifying Texas’ law against sodomy, IIRC. He goes both ways, to use a bad pun.

I think the Bond decision is significant, however. I cannot recall any decision that hinges so much on the Tenth Amendment. We are so used to seeing SCOTUS decisions that are perversions of the Fourteenth.


11 posted on 06/23/2011 2:16:28 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

The halfrican messiah will just reject whatever the SCOTUS rules, just like the non-enforcement of DOMA.

Time to wake up, America.


12 posted on 06/23/2011 4:32:08 AM PDT by MikeSteelBe ( "Failure to speak out against evil is evil itself" - Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Actually Kennedy was going libertarian in his opinion on the Texas sodomy law. That would bode well since Obamacare has touches both states rights and individual rights.


13 posted on 06/23/2011 4:32:39 AM PDT by jimfree (In 2012 Sarah Palin will have more quality executive experience than Barack Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Will Kennedy or any of the others want to vote the 10th Amendment is unconstitutional to satisfy Obama? Not likely.


14 posted on 06/23/2011 4:51:06 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

That’s a very interesting analysis; thanks for posting it.


15 posted on 06/23/2011 4:52:57 AM PDT by Oceander (The phrase "good enough for government work" is not meant as a compliment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I truly hope the SCOTUS does not evolve their thought process to agree with The Won that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”.


16 posted on 06/23/2011 4:53:36 AM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MikeSteelBe
The halfrican messiah will just reject whatever the SCOTUS rules, just like the non-enforcement of DOMA.

I don't think it will work out that way. The only way for the government to enforce Obama care is through fines and penalties, which must be enforced through the courts.

17 posted on 06/23/2011 5:09:39 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; ExTexasRedhead; justiceseeker93; SunkenCiv; Kaslin

Let us hope so.


18 posted on 06/23/2011 5:20:27 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Illegal aliens collect welfare checks that Americans won't collect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

” Justice Kennedy said at the hearing: “The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty; and if that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can’t it be raised?” This made court watchers wonder if this might forecast how Justice Kennedy might vote on ObamaCare.”

Inheres? Liberty infringed by criminal conviction? Anyone who can guess how Kennedy might rule on ObamaCare from such a gobbldeyquote is a better man than I.


19 posted on 06/23/2011 5:20:34 AM PDT by flowerplough (Bammy: It frustrates me when people talk about govemrnment jobs as if somehow those are worth less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Obviously I did not read it closely enough. Thanks.


20 posted on 06/23/2011 5:38:54 AM PDT by Tom D. (Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benj. Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’m betting on a 5-4 decision that its unconstitutional. The final nail in Barry’s coffin.


21 posted on 06/23/2011 5:45:28 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

Yes, and the AG has already shown that “his people” and other protected groups will get preferential treatment.

There is no equal protection under the law here anymore. It goes form the top down, and bottom up.

Nothing will fix this except revolution, civil war, or peaceful secession.


22 posted on 06/23/2011 6:10:30 AM PDT by MikeSteelBe ( "Failure to speak out against evil is evil itself" - Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: piytar
(1) The general legal consensus is no, it can't with respect to "fundamental rights." Thanks to the last two big SCOTUS cases on the 2nd, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right.

Property rights are fundamental. The Endangered Species Act supposedly derives its authority to curtail private property rights without compensation by treaty.

(2) This case ruled that the 10th protected an American from a law passed under the auspices of the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention," a Senate ratified treaty. So no again.

Same problem. I wouldn't take away too much on this ruling, as this looks to me like a Court that can't keep its story straight, treating issues of Federalism in a manner similar to "selective incorporation." That the author treats Wickard v. Filburn as anything less than an abomination shows how dangerously far we've slid as regards the latitude of the court.

23 posted on 06/23/2011 7:20:35 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: piytar

What, then, is your opinion on the UN Rights of the Child treaty?

Could it override the constitutions of states and take away parental rights?

Michael Farris strongly believes so.


24 posted on 06/23/2011 7:23:25 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
That bodes very ill for Obamacare

As if the Supremes will do anything other than "evade" yet another issue with Hussein. We're stuck with the usurper and every decree he passes down.

25 posted on 06/23/2011 7:46:16 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Property rights are fundamental. Unfortunately, they have been so eroded by the left over the past few decades that they are no longer treated that way.

This ruling might be a wedge that can be used to start to reclaim them.

Because of the recent 2nd Amendment cases, those rights are now on firmer ground with the SCOTUS.


26 posted on 06/23/2011 8:45:36 AM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
I think the SCOTUS is going to be moving towards a Constitutionalist “revival” period. Of course, in the end, as some power is returned to States where it belongs, States are beginning to compete with each other for citizens and businesses like never before due to modern mobility.

The only way I see that happening is for Sotomayor and Kagan to be dismissed from the SCOTUS and the only way that will happen is to prove that Obama was not eligible to nominate them.

27 posted on 06/23/2011 8:59:28 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: piytar
Property rights are fundamental. Unfortunately, they have been so eroded by the left over the past few decades that they are no longer treated that way.

Correct. Our system of law has degenerated into situational reality. There is no longer anything consistent about it.

This ruling might be a wedge that can be used to start to reclaim them.

One can only hope so. If the Bamster gets another appointment however, that may be all she wrote.

28 posted on 06/23/2011 9:22:10 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MrB

It shouldn’t, but parental rights have been eroded as much as property rights to the point that neither are treated as fundamental rights anymore, so it might. Sigh.


29 posted on 06/23/2011 9:48:03 AM PDT by piytar (Obama's Depression. Say it early, say it often. Why? Because it's TRUE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

The SCOTUS can return to Constitutionalism any time it wants to; it is not obligated Constitutionally to maintain stare decisis on any particular case that it decides.

My point in post #10 was that Bond v. United States appears to be, to this humble poster, a trial balloon of sorts, where SCOTUS has ruled - unanimously - the following:

“Held: Bond has standing to challenge the federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States”

Now of course the obamacare situation is not identical, but this ruling in it’s unanimity signals a willingness to entertain the standing of citizens in cases hinging upon the Constitutionality of laws, as opposed to the wont of lower courts to deny such standing exists. While SCOTUS may not want to hear a case yet on eligibility, my theory is that the economic disaster that is unfolding is cause for concern amongst all of our SC Justices, liberal and conservative alike - and it may well be that Bond signals that all current SC Justices are anxious to do what they can to cause the wholesale cancellation of the financial Hindenburg that is obamacare. Given the state of the finances of the Federal government, only partisans seeking to destroy free enterprise in America and the truly idiotic fail to admit that obamacare, if implemented on top of the mess America is in, would cause a financial catastrophe, the likes of which could threaten the stability and viability of the government.


30 posted on 06/23/2011 9:59:19 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (PC's Tavern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
But Kagan was originally charged with assigning the first defender of Obamacare for Obama (conflict). She didn't recuse herself from deciding if SCOTUS would hear the appeal of Vinson's verdict. I would think if the unanimity of the Bond decision was a signal of SCOTUS reverting to Constitutionality rather than liberal interpretation, it would have been reflected in the prior case with Kagan’s recusal or at the very least, the other justices questioning her impartiality.
31 posted on 06/23/2011 10:14:53 AM PDT by liberalh8ter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

Methinks the iceberg of disaster is closer now than when Kagan first arrived.

I think DC power insiders like SCOTUS are starting to put two and two together. Think about what their personal investment advisors are telling them - basically America is toast.

They also are aware of the quiet uproar of conservative Constitutionalists - millions of people.

If obamacare comes before them for a ruling on Constitutionality and they beat the dead horse of the commerce clause - what if the economy completely collapses in the next few years and there is a complete breakdown ? Do they want to be the ones who forced trillions in additional government deficits by forcing obamacare on citizens - in complete disregard of the Constitution ? I think perhaps they will come up with some flowery language to perhaps cause obamacare to be stopped, which would simply put healthcare back where it was - and remove SCOTUS as being blameworthy for destroying the nation.

The bernank is like a deer in the headlights, the Fed will probably go bye-byes. Not everyone, but some in DC I think are finally starting to think that the train wreck is real.

I don’t know, it’s IMHO...


32 posted on 06/23/2011 10:37:57 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (PC's Tavern...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

I agree that the wheat case ruling was absurd, but at least it was prohibiting the farmer from growing wheat, not necessarily forcing him to buy the wheat. Could the farmer, instead have grown corn to feed his chickens, which would be more reasonable anyway?

I’ve never really heard of feeding wheat to chickens, but then I’ve never raised any chickens, either.


33 posted on 06/23/2011 11:04:00 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Kennedy was also, however, one of the crucial swing votes in nullifying Texas’ law against sodomy, IIRC.

He wrote the opinion of the Court in Lawrence vs. Texas (2003). He didn't worry too much about the Tenth Amendment or stare decisis then. <snort!>

Just another chuckle-headed, swing-like-a-gate DC party-hound, AFAIC. He also let Laurence Tribe lobby him for three and a half hours in a Vienna cafe on the eve of the Court's vote on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, and voted with the liberals then. He could have helped strike down Roe vs. Wade, and in Lawrence he had Byron White's opinion and Chief Justice Burger's concurring opinion before him, scarcely 17 years old, upholding an identical Georgia law, but wrote his lawbreaking squib de novo, as if Bowers vs. Hardwick had never existed, to please the deviant conspirators and power-gays in Washington.

Slanted/perverted article on Bowers vs. Hardwick in Wiki, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick#Aftermath.

Lastly, we have this comment of Laurence Tribe's, offered at the time of the Sotomayor nomination, handicapping Kennedy's future votes (he should know, having been a major traducer himself of Kennedy's votes in the past), documenting Kennedy as having been influenced by closet-case Associate Justice Souter:

... issues on which Kennedy will probably vote with Roberts despite Souter’s influence but on which I don’t regard Kennedy as a lost cause for the decade or so that he is likely to remain on the Court. (Emphasis added.)

Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe.

(Further note on Tribe: He argued for the sodomites before SCOTUS in the Bowers vs. Hardwick case, in relief of Hardwick's original ACLU lawyer -- the case was an instance of barratry by the ACLU, which was scouting for cases to bring against states' sodomy laws -- and wrote an amicus brief for the ACLU in Lawrence, in which the appellant was represented by Lambda Legal, which had done the same in Texas, bringing Baker vs. Wade to a forum-shopped Carter appointee in 1981 before soliciting Lawrence's test [and offense, imho -- the whole offense, arrest, and court case was a setup charade: the person who called police was arrested, charged, and sentenced in a sidebar proceeding later, basically for temporizing with justice] 20 years later. Tribe continues to serve as a Harvard professor despite being reprimanded by the university for plagiarism in a campus scandal in 2004.)

34 posted on 06/23/2011 11:04:34 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.")

On appeal, the 3rd Circuit then ruled that Bond lacked standing to challenge her conviction, finding that only states, not individuals, can bring challenges under the Tenth Amendment.

I guess the brilliant jurists on the 3rd Circus court STOPPED READING the 10th Amendment at the comma after the phrase "states respectively" and never saw the words "OR TO THE PEOPLE."
35 posted on 06/23/2011 12:30:06 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimfree

“Actually Kennedy was going libertarian in his opinion on the Texas sodomy law. That would bode well since Obamacare has touches both states rights and individual rights.”

True. But he wasn’t interpreting the constitution. He was joining the “make stuff up because I think it’s a good idea” crowd on the left.

That’s what makes him so unreliable. His judicial philosophy is the same as breyer, ginsberg, and the wise latina—smart, elite judges ought to be able to impose their morality on average people by pretending their morality is in the constitution. He differs with breyer et al on what the imposed result should be in some cases.

That’s why he is better than breyer in result but no different in judicial philosophy.


36 posted on 06/23/2011 4:18:29 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Clintonfatigued.
Justice Kennedy's opinion in U.S. v. Bond showed he still believes the federal government is restricted by the enumerated powers as listed in the U.S. Constitution.
Or, maybe he just thought a total nutjob should be set free so she can continue her harassment of her victim.


37 posted on 06/23/2011 5:35:51 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Thanks Cincinna for this link -- http://www.friendsofitamar.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Thanks neverdem! I'm late to the party but chores kept me away from my computinmachine all day.

I sent out a ping to an earlier THREAD alerting the 10th Amendment Division of this development. Tagged and bagged this thread however.

JMHO but I think Jug Ears had better fasten his seat belt; he's in for a rough ride.

38 posted on 06/23/2011 7:58:42 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I'm no lawyer, but IIRC, a two thirds vote of the Senate, if they have a quorum, then they can override the Bill of Rights.

Many good articles re the Constitution vs treaties. A snip from THIS ARTICLE states it pretty clearly:

Clarification of a clause in the Constitution of the United States is in order here. Article VI, clause 2 declares that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It is the last clause that is misunderstood, even by attorneys. “... Constitution or Laws of any State ...” refers to the Constitutions of the several states, NOT the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were much too well informed to allow the state Constitutions to alter the United States Constitution. That would have been self defeating. The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.
The complete article, which is worth a read, cites SCOTUS decisions essentially saying as much.
39 posted on 06/23/2011 8:41:30 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I just can't see any reasonable way to recover from that absurdity. The implication of letting such idiocy stand is to give the federal government any power it desires.

Consider: any human activity at all could effect one's needs. For example, if I jog I might have more need of a water bottle. Of coarse water bottle transactions within the store I might purchase it are part of a network of interconnected transactions which are a commerce that cross state lines.

Thus, if we accept such expansion of the interstate commerce clause that regulates a farmer growing crops for his own animals, then all human activity is covered by this clause...since no human activity is completely independent of interstate commerce. Mandating that I jog would encourage interstate commerce and help the economy...or conversely mandating I not jog might help lower the cost of water bottles. Either way an excuse can be dreamed up for the federal government to make any mandate of my behavior it wishes.

Obviously this is not just an unorthodox opinion the court let stand. It was in fact a blatant violation of any kind of valid reasoning. Thus, I simply can not respect the US Supreme Court unless and until it reforms itself, overturns such absurd rulings, and repudiates and rejects any that presided over them as being unfit to any profession that requires critical thought.

In the meantime, although clearly forcing somebody to buy something is crossing another line that ought never be crossed...based on past behavior, I do not have confidence that they will not bulldoze right over that line as well.

I really wish they were worthy of the respect that the office should have. But they are not. The US Supreme court has become a disgrace, and giving them respect at this point is an affront to the institution as it ought to have been, and I pray might one day be.

40 posted on 06/24/2011 2:02:07 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

Of course you are right. I was simply less sympathetic is the case of the farmer who claimed that the wheat he was growing was for his chickens. I don’t believe him. It was a bad case, almost as though the case was picked as a sure loser.

What is really the question is the whole system of farm subsidies and government regulation.

Have you heard about Obama’s newest executive order, putting all his Czars in charge of the rural areas of the country, under the guise of controlling food production? It’s all part of the Agenda 21, Wildlands project.

Right now, the left is pushing a Gateway terminal in my county. They have picked an island of commercial development that is not connected to any town or city, so that the residents who will be impacted, have no voice in the approval process. Then they went further and got the state to rule that the county council, who have ultimate say in the approval, cannot even discuss the project with their constituents until it is all over.

Then , the developers said that they wanted to include grain as an export to China, and invited all these farmers, who are now being paid not to produce grain and asked them if they would ship their grain to China through our county if the government lifted the regulations. So, it’s ok to grow the grain, or soy beans if they ship it to China.

The plan to ship both the coal and the food are part of the Agenda 21 plan for America, shipping out our natural resources to developing nations where the manufacturing and jobs will take place. Building these rail/ port projects to facilitate it and keeping all the profit inside the Democrat fascist system. The partners in the port projects are Goldman Sachs/ BNSF and Warren Buffet, using GE clean coal technology, Peabody coal. Oh, and the coal leases are on the Crowe reservation.


41 posted on 06/24/2011 8:43:51 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

As far as I can tell this case stands for the individuals’ standing to sue under the 10th Amendment.

This case does not stand for the scope of the 10th Amendment.


42 posted on 06/25/2011 6:31:00 AM PDT by dervish (Israel is not what's wrong with the Middle East; it's what's right with it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So in U.S. v. Bond Justice Kennedy found that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. Let's hope he'll do the same when Obamacare makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

No he didn't. If they found that, Bond wouldn't have to go back to state court to make an argument on 10A grounds. What they found was that 10A does place limits on the feds' authority and that individuals who are thus harmed can argue that that has happened in a particular case, and not just states. They left it for the lower court to decide if the feds have overstepped in Bond's particular circumstances.

43 posted on 06/26/2011 12:45:37 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
What this article fails to mention is that this was a 9-0 win for the 10th Amendment. That bodes very ill for Obamacare.

I'm wondering if The Won pissed them off bad enough to actually stand up for the Constitution with his SOTU remarks about Citizens United. If so, I have mixed feelings about that. OTOH, he certainly deserves it for being rude and a commie, and I'll take a good ruling any way I can get it especially on CommieCare, but then who's going to stand up for our liberties when the would-be tyrant du jour treats them nice?

44 posted on 06/26/2011 12:50:40 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: piytar
(2) This case ruled that the 10th protected an American from a law passed under the auspices of the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention," a Senate ratified treaty. So no again.

Ooh, I didn't catch that implication. It's like getting to open the same present twice!

45 posted on 06/26/2011 12:52:43 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson