It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court: ‘Jilted wife’ can’t be prosecuted under weapons treaty

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   


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.


Supreme Court: ‘Jilted wife’ can’t be prosecuted under weapons treaty

In what is a huge win for protection of individual rights and the Constitution, Scotus unanimously agreed that the defendant could not be tried under the 1997 Chemical weapons convention. They stated that it was an overreach of the Federal government.

On the case of Carol Anne Bond, a Pennsylvania microbiologist who discovered that her best friend was pregnant with her husband’s child. Seeking revenge, Bond stole various toxic chemicals from work and spread them on her former friend’s doorknob, car door and mailbox. said theHill ... certainly, the government had another agenda with bringing such a case all the way to the Supreme court, although the woman sustained a minor chemical burn.

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...
Also, the NYT
www.nytimes.com...

the funniest court statement of the month....
“We are reluctant to ignore the ordinary meaning of ‘chemical weapon,' ” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for six justices, “when doing so would transform a statute passed to implement the international Convention on Chemical Weapons into one that also makes it a federal offense to poison goldfish.”

edit on 2-6-2014 by R_Clark because: Grammar and Credits




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: R_Clark

. . . stole various toxic chemicals from work . . .
What if "work" was making weapons?
That is not the "kitchen cupboard".
If she did work at a weapons plant, and she was able to just take whatever she wanted home, then the plant itself should be prosecuted for negligence.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The efforts at executive overreach in this administration as well as the last one are just incredible to see. It's redefining to the nation as a whole.....or would be, if the courts didn't strike down what they get the chance to take a whack at.

This was absurd and I recall seeing it cross a court related site some time back, before it had gotten this far. I'm glad this is how its ended up. Using a treaty like this for what amounts to a rather dumb form of creative methods to domestic murder was just beyond belief.

Two really really big examples of dumb here in the original thing. One at the Defendant's table. One at the Prosecutors table.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Wait, the government actually admitted that it was overreaching and an issue wasn't their responsibility to oversee? Wow! Say it ain't so!



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like I keep saying, the Government isn't a monolithic thing and there is quite a gulf between Legislative/Executive and the Courts who slap a ruler across their knuckles as hard as us normal folk on occasion.

Score one for the courts... (it balances the bad judges that couldn't rule on a lunch order without screwing it up)




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   

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...


Thankfully, you're wrong. As your NYT article put it:


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.


The SCOTUS didn't rule on the treaty power, but on the law enacted by congress. Agenda 21, as I understand, is the best thing since sliced bread and I look forward to its full and total implementation.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: R_Clark

S&F.

Wow, just wow! She does something to another individual, and it's tried as a treaty violation?!?!? I agree; clear attempt to get the UN imbedded in our laws. Nice to see the SC get one right.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   

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!


No the Supreme Court had to point out to the government that their actions violated the Constitution. Im sure people are tired of me talking but here is some more info anyways.


Way back in the day there was a Supreme Court case called the Head Money case. One of the results of SCOTUS's ruling was foreign treaties that the US signs and ratifies are not equal with the US Constitution. The court ruled them as being subordinate to the US Constitution. It also made those treaties a part of the US Federal body of law.

What that means is the US Congress, once ratified, can actually modify those treaties to be in line with Us law. It also allows individuals in the US to challenge those treaties if they are affected by it. The ruling also stated that foreign treaties cannot grant more authority to the federal government, referring to the established powers and responsibilities as defined by the US Constitution.

To me this is another attempt by this administration to circumvent the US Constitution and Congress.

Whoever the federal prosecutors were who went with this should be investigated themselves for prosecutorial misconduct and if wishing made it so, violating the suspect/victims civil rights.

If the US had a Law for this and the UN / International Law has the exact same law, I would still rely on / comply with the US law. The UN is not a democratic organization, their leadership is not elected by US citizens, and at no point do they have the right to create international law and apply it to US citizens.

The US government answers to the people.
The UN does not.

This should be a lesson learning time for our government. If they don't get it now, then people need to get out during the midterms and vote in an effort to force the lesson.


ETA - @ OP

Completely agree with the goldfish comment.
edit on 3-6-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join