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

Skip to comments.

Bond vs. Holder (We WON one today)
SCOTUS ^ | 06/02/2014 | SCOTUS

Posted on 06/02/2014 8:55:06 AM PDT by pierrem15

"The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard."

(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; bond; chemwarfaretreaty; holder; oneone; scotus; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
UNANIMOUS HOLDING: the Chemical Warfare Treaty acts do not enable the prosecution of ordinary criminal acts as Federal crimes under the 10th Amendment.
1 posted on 06/02/2014 8:55:06 AM PDT by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Fyi


2 posted on 06/02/2014 8:57:03 AM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

We one one?

That’s pretty series.


3 posted on 06/02/2014 8:59:30 AM PDT by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

4 posted on 06/02/2014 8:59:41 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: everyone



5 posted on 06/02/2014 9:00:21 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

How about chemical and grenade attacks on US citizens by law enforcement agents of the government?

Is that still allowed?


6 posted on 06/02/2014 9:00:53 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain

Series? It’s HUGH!


7 posted on 06/02/2014 9:02:01 AM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

I assume you meant we WON one today?


8 posted on 06/02/2014 9:02:14 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Sure, the police are still ok using CS.

However, the military is still required to incinerate the enemy when they are holding out in a bunker, as using CS is a violation of international conventions and evil.


9 posted on 06/02/2014 9:05:27 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

He was so excited we were winning won that he made a homonym error.


10 posted on 06/02/2014 9:16:14 AM PDT by Rennes Templar (If Obama hated America and wanted to destroy her, what would he do differently?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

what’s the down side?


11 posted on 06/02/2014 9:19:18 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi or Atty General Holder, who brought more guns to Mexico?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Q: “what’s the down side?”

A: 10.


12 posted on 06/02/2014 9:21:34 AM PDT by jurroppi1 (The only thing you "pass to see what's in it" is a stool sample. h/t MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

A SCOTUS ruling that cites the TENTH amendment???????

Amazing.

Of course, I expect the Clown and Eric the Red to ignore it anyway.


13 posted on 06/02/2014 9:24:34 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Thought I checked that, sorry for the blooper.


14 posted on 06/02/2014 9:25:26 AM PDT by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain

Reminds me of Won Won in Harry Potter.


15 posted on 06/02/2014 9:31:43 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15
We one today

We bad.

16 posted on 06/02/2014 9:34:51 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
He was so excited we were winning won that he made a homonym error.

At least he didn't make an ad homonym attack.  :)

17 posted on 06/02/2014 9:49:29 AM PDT by FreedomOfExpression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

Unanimous—with three concurring opinions, by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, with Roberts writing for the majority. For those inclined to read such things, here is some good summer reading.


18 posted on 06/02/2014 9:52:44 AM PDT by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

“Pennsylvania’s laws are sufficient to prosecute assaults like Bond’s, and there is no indication in section 229 that Congress intended to abandon its traditional “reluctan[ce] to define as a federal crime conduct readily denounced as criminal by the States,” Bass, supra, at 349. That principle goes to the very structure of the Constitution, and “protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf


19 posted on 06/02/2014 10:19:50 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15
The court's decision is not nearly as conservative as one might think from the title of the thread. Rather than declaring the Chemical Warfare Treaty Act unconstitutional as Scalia, Thomas, and Alito did in their concurring opinions, Roberts simply rewrote the law so as not to apply to the conduct of the convicted defendant (Bond). Thus, the majority decision never addresses the 10th Amendment issue.

Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in contrast, come right out an accuse the majority of doing the job of Congress in rewriting the law to achieve the desired result. They start from the simple premise that the role of the Court since Marbury v. Madison is to apply the law as written -- no more, no less. They go on to state that the Chemical Warfare Treaty Act is clear on its face and clearly applies to the Defendant's conduct, and the issue is whether the Act is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as applied to the Defendant. They hold that it is not.

20 posted on 06/02/2014 10:29:45 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Hoodat

Series? Hugh? I think its ements.


24 posted on 06/02/2014 10:59:10 AM PDT by EODGUY (Hold on to your copies of the Consititution of the United States. It is going to be re-written.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

“In our federal system. the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the People retain the remainder.”

Sotomayor must have about hucked her guts having to sign onto a decision containing that affirmation.

Scalia’s concurrence is stellar; his textual analysis of the Federal Law in question concludes NOT that the Federal Law does not apply, but that it applies unconstitutionally, and is, therefore, null and void.

Roberts, writing the opinion, takes pages to examine the question of whether the Federal Law applies to the defendant’s acts. Scalia’s concise analysis runs less than a page. Brevity is not only the soul of wit, but very often the beating heart of Truth, as well. Belabored explanations arouse our suspicions for the good reason that they so frequently belie a vacuity of truth at their roots.

Scalia explains, “The Court does not think the interpretive exercise so simple. But that is only because its result-driven, antitextualism befogs what is evident.” His subsequent dismantling of the Opinion of The Court is truly a thing of beauty as he demonstrates, point-by-point why The Court ruled correctly for erroneous reasons.

Dear God in Heaven, give me eight more “Scalias” and we might, at long last, witness a full restoration of the vigor and stature of this once-mighty Representative Republic as a Nation of Laws “with Liberty, and Justice for all.”


25 posted on 06/02/2014 11:02:38 AM PDT by HKMk23 (The Superior Culture will prevail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain

“We one one? That’s pretty series.”

Yes, it’s HUGH!


26 posted on 06/02/2014 11:10:15 AM PDT by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

I’d say we have a pattern with Roberts—and it is not a good one.


27 posted on 06/02/2014 11:13:08 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

I don’t understand what this means.


28 posted on 06/02/2014 11:15:41 AM PDT by wastedyears (I'm a pessimist, I say plenty of negative things. Consider it a warning of sorts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

He was so excited we were winning won that he made a homonym error...

ENOUGH OF THESE ADD HOMONYM ATTACKS


29 posted on 06/02/2014 11:19:54 AM PDT by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar
he made a homonym error.

The dreaded homonym error. These days that's also considered to be a hate crime.

30 posted on 06/02/2014 11:22:28 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
"I don’t understand what this means."

Are you logged in?

31 posted on 06/02/2014 11:23:07 AM PDT by BureaucratusMaximus (Economy says: White House worse than expected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
“In our federal system. the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the People retain the remainder.”

Sotomayor must have about hucked her guts having to sign onto a decision containing that affirmation.

No. You see, it's only 'limited' in the same way that the copyright term is for a "limited" time. In other words, the 'limits' are whatever the hell the government wants them to be.

32 posted on 06/02/2014 11:55:06 AM PDT by zeugma (I have never seen anyone cross the street to avoid a black man in a suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All


Less Than $900 To Go!!
If You Haven't Donated Yet This Quarter
Please Remember To Help
The FR FReepathon

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

33 posted on 06/02/2014 11:55:41 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

I’d say you’re right. This isn’t a win, it’s a corruption. Roberts sure looks like he’s the political fixer for official Washington. Bush (the dynasty) knew what he was doing.


34 posted on 06/02/2014 4:12:12 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BureaucratusMaximus

Kenny Loggin?


35 posted on 06/02/2014 4:12:50 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

I see this in a similar light to you (I think)... The Supreme Court has authority to adjudicate, not legislate. Similarly we have a President whose job is to execute the law of the land... but here this clocksucker is changing legislation to suit his ignoble goals.

At some point the G-d damned House and Senate better pull their collective heads out of their asses and start by filing articles of impeachment against all of these tyrants.


36 posted on 06/02/2014 4:33:27 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Just like Poppy knew what he was doing with Souter—and W tried to do with Harriet Miers.


37 posted on 06/02/2014 4:39:49 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala

“At some point the G-d damned House and Senate better pull their collective heads out of their asses and start by filing articles of impeachment. “

Not going to happen. Ever. One faction of the uniparty does not challenge the other faction.


38 posted on 06/02/2014 5:57:12 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Relocate and Dominate: freestateproject.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

A very narrow (albeit unanimous) win. The majority holds that Congress didn’t mean the statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Treaty to reach a simple assault within one of the states just because it used poison. Only Alito, Scalia and Thomas said that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to do that even if it wanted to.


39 posted on 06/02/2014 5:58:39 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
Similarly we have a President whose job is to execute the law of the land... but here this clocksucker is changing legislation to suit his ignoble goals.

In this particular case, O'Clocksucker didn't change the law; rather, he enforced the law exactly as Congress wrote it, in accordance with his constitutional powers. Roberts et al., is the person who changed the law in order to side-step the 10th Amendment issue by finding that the Act simply does not apply to the type of domestic violence (as in inter-family) at the root of the dispute. In a way, Robert's opinion is an anti-adminstration slap in that the Court essentially found that Holder failed to correctly interpret the law. In contrast, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito found that the Justice Department properly interpreted and applied the law precisely as Congress wrote it; and that the law is unconstitutional under the 10 Amendment as applied to this particular defendant.

40 posted on 06/02/2014 6:00:37 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Post #20 is the thread winner.

What had the potential to be a landmark decision ended up being a small case of statutory construction. Chief Justice Roberts, ever the minimalist, read into the Chemical Warfare Treaty Act an implied exception for traditional state crimes. This allowed him, along with a majority of the Court, to avoid having to make a Constitutional ruling. At least he didn't convert the Act into a tax on chemical weapons.

41 posted on 06/02/2014 6:43:40 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

“They hold that it is not.”

I meant to write that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito found the Act UNconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.


42 posted on 06/02/2014 7:05:25 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

It’s a club. The Bushes and the Clintons have a lot in common.


43 posted on 06/02/2014 8:04:29 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

nicely played.


44 posted on 06/02/2014 8:41:28 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

s’kay.... the auto fill that I forget to keep turned off sometimes makes all sorts of interesting sentences


45 posted on 06/02/2014 8:42:53 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus
"with three concurring opinions, by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, with Roberts writing for the majority."

Roberts is still a wus.

46 posted on 06/02/2014 9:44:27 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Traitor Roberts remains out of control.


47 posted on 06/02/2014 9:46:04 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
"I’d say we have a pattern with Roberts—and it is not a good one. "

Traitor Roberts appears to be retarded as a Constitutional Scholar/Interpreter.

48 posted on 06/02/2014 9:48:50 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

But, leaving aside that he is a traitor, is he still better than Kennedy and the leftists?


49 posted on 06/02/2014 9:52:28 PM PDT by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
" Roberts et al., is the person who changed the law in order to side-step the 10th Amendment issue by finding that the Act simply does not apply to the type of domestic violence (as in inter-family) at the root of the dispute."

Roberts == Screen door [Submarine type].

50 posted on 06/02/2014 9:53:41 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 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.

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