Bond vs. Holder (We WON one today)

SCOTUS ^ | 06/02/2014 | SCOTUS

[pierrem15]

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

[pierrem15]

UNANIMOUS HOLDING: the Chemical Warfare Treaty acts do not enable the prosecution of ordinary criminal acts as Federal crimes under the 10th Amendment.

[hoosiermama]

Fyi

[Lucas McCain]

We one one?

That’s pretty series.

[BuckeyeTexan]

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

[onyx]

Time to Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $1.5k To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's 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!

Time to Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $1.5k To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's 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!

Time to Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $1.5k To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's 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!

[MrB]

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

Is that still allowed?

[Hoodat]

Series? It’s HUGH!

[Nifster]

I assume you meant we WON one today?

[SampleMan]

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.

[Rennes Templar]

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

[NonValueAdded]

what’s the down side?

[jurroppi1]

Q: “what’s the down side?”

A: 10.

[SoFloFreeper]

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

Amazing.

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

[pierrem15]

Thought I checked that, sorry for the blooper.

[Mercat]

Reminds me of Won Won in Harry Potter.

[ElkGroveDan]

We one today

We bad.

[FreedomOfExpression]

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

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

[Hieronymus]

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.

[Mr Rogers]

“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

[Labyrinthos]

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.