Posted on 11/05/2013 10:18:49 AM PST by nickcarraway
Finally, a Supreme Court case that can keep my attention: NPR reports that today the highest court in the land hears the 2005 case of Philadelphia suburbanite Carol Anne Bond, who discovered that her husband had impregnated her best friend, and then attempted to poison said best friend. Bond was subsequently convicted under a chemical weapons treaty.
Using chemicals stolen from the chemical manufacturing company where she worked, Bond mixed a compound that can be lethal in small amounts — and is bright orange in color — and put it in her ex-BFF’s mail. The mistress easily noticed the powder (she suffered only a thumb burn), and complained to police, who took no action. But her mailman alerted the the Postal Service, which had videotaped Bond spreading the chemicals on 24 different occasions. The federal government convicted Bond under the chemical weapons treaty, and she was sentenced to six years in prison, three times the sentence she would have received if the state had pursued the case. Bond appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the treaty is unconstitutional because it violates states’ rights to prosecute simple assault.
The government, however, says the treaty was enacted to ban a variety of uses of chemical weapons outside of war. “If Mrs. Bond's actions had ended up killing the victim, or killing a postal worker, or killing the victim's child, I don't think anybody would dispute that this was an appropriate use of this convention," said former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger.
Bond's lawyer, former solicitor general Paul Clement, begs to differ. “Nation states conduct war. They don't poison their husband's lover. [...] I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here,” he told NPR, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon." He says his client is “peaceful” by the international law standards recognized in the treaty.
So you think it depends on wevil intent?
Exactly!
(Good one, by the way)
Wow - I wouldn’t have picked you as a statist.
The feds do not gain jurisdiction in a run-of-the-mill attempted murder case because of some treaty that doesn’t even tangentially pertain to this incident, other than that a chemical was use.
Oh, wait! Gunpowder is a chemical! Should the feds now have jurisdiction for police powers in every case where a firearm is shot?
The federal government can legally destroy anyone at any time for any reason.
Remember, they used the anti-mafia RICO laws against pro-lifers sidewalk counseling outside abortion mills on public property.
Statist? LOL.
As other more helpful responses, indicated there are other issues at play here that would make me not support the Fed's case.
But the federal involvement revolved around the fact that she stole the chemicals from a company she worked at and at which I'm sure she signed some binding homeland security agreements not to abscond with the controlled chemicals with which she had contact. Additionally, when she sent the chemicals through the mail with intent to kill, she opened the door for the Fed.
But I agree it's not a Federal case. The non-working Philly police are the reason it fell to them.
Would seem that if the law did not come up thru the Constitution by way of ‘we the people’ it is not a legitimate law...
I know you’re not a statist - that was supposed to be a “wake up” slap.
“when she sent the chemicals through the mail with intent to kill, she opened the door for the Fed.”
I thought she put them on the mail that was already in the mailbox, and didn’t send them thru the mail. Still mail tampering, whch it seems would be the rightful federal crime if they wanted to prosecute.
My guess is the Philly cops were in a “no harm, no foul” mood, thinking they had better uses of their time than chasing after an inept jilted wife. Whether that’s eating donuts or pursuing organized crime, I’ll leave to others to decide.
If this doesn’t get shot down (and indications are it will), it would open up a new avenue for a huge federal power grab from the states, giving the feds police powers over any crime they can tangentially link to a treaty.
That was the point of my “gunpowder is a chemical” comment.
“But her mailman alerted the the Postal Service, which had videotaped Bond spreading the chemicals on 24 different occasions.”
WTF? Were they waiting for her to actually kill the person so they could up the charges?
Penn and Teller got dozens of LIV signatures to ban it!
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.