It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that a woman who sought to give her husband’s mistress an uncomfortable rash could not be prosecuted under an international chemical weapons treaty.
The justices’ ruling, in Bond. v. U.S., admonished officials against bringing federal charges in local cases for which they were not intended.
“The global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard,” the court concluded.
“Because our constitutional structure leaves local criminal activity primarily to the States, we have generally declined to read federal law as intruding on that responsibility, unless Congress has clearly indicated that the law should have such reach,” Roberts wrote.
What if "work" was making weapons?
. . . stole various toxic chemicals from work . . .
originally posted by: R_Clark
This was a backdoor attempt to get a precedent for UN and other treaties such as Agenda 21 and Small Arms Treaty which would all Federal overreach on a local level. This will be a big loss for large government overreach...
The Justice Department said the law was justified by the federal government’s power to enter into treaties and that no additional constitutional authority was required.
That position found support in a 1920 Supreme Court decision, Missouri v. Holland. “If the treaty is valid, there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute” enacted to fulfill it, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote for the court.
Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion avoided a ruling on the question of the scope of the treaty power by interpreting the chemical weapons law narrowly.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Wait, the government actually admitted that it was overreaching and an issue wasn't their responsibility to oversee? Wow! Say it ain't so!