Groundbreaking US Supreme Court Decision on the Tenth and Ninth Amendment

page: 1
59
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+21 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
From Before Its News...

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the best and most important decisions ever on federalism. The Court unanimously held that not just states but individuals have standing to challenge federal laws as violations of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. This decision is as radical in the direction of liberty as the New Deal was radical in the direction of socialism.


Decision:

No. 09–1227. Argued February 22, 2011—Decided June 16, 2011

When petitioner Bond discovered that her close friend was pregnant by Bond’s husband, she began harassing the woman. The woman suf-fered a minor burn after Bond put caustic substances on objects the woman was likely to touch. Bond was indicted for violating 18 U. S. C. §229, which forbids knowing possession or use, for nonpeaceful purposes, of a chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans,” §§229(a); 229F(1); (7); (8), and which is part of a federal Act implementing a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States. The District Court denied Bond’s motion to dismiss the §229 charges on the ground that thestatute exceeded Congress’ constitutional authority to enact. She entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the ruling on the statute’s validity. She did just that, renewing her Tenth Amendment claim. The Third Circuit, however, accepted the Government’s position that she lacked standing. The Government has since changed its view on Bond’s standing.

Held: Bond has standing to challenge the federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States. Pp. 3–14. (a) The


This is a "score" for the side of states rights and individual freedoms, yet it could just as easily be another in the long list of overlooked and unenforced precedents in US Law, excepting when it benefits a member of the elite ruling class.

For now, Score one for our rights.




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Oh thank God. Open the flood gates for obamacare suits. Let loose the dogs of legal war. Every single lover of liberty and freedom should sue the government over overreaching laws.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Thanks, I've missed this news. Has the media covered it, or come up with the implications you have? If this is correct, and liberty has somehow gained a foothold in the U.S. Supreme Court (snuck in when no one was looking, no doubt) this is fantastic news. I'll follow this thead with interest.


+14 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You know why I hate court battles trying to stop the government from oppressing you?

It's damage control, it's a reaction. It's a massive huge waste of time and can ruin your life.

How about the government just stop messing around and playing dirty? That would fix all of this and I wouldn't have to challenge anything in the first place.

They can mind their business, I'll mind mine, and any interaction we have will be mutually beneficial rather than the one-sided short-end of the stick deal they always hand out.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Lono1
 


Could we get the actual link too?

Before it's news tends to have a bunch of people making things up. If this isn't sourced well I'm willing to dismiss it. If, however, there is source material then I can look up the case and confirm.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
www.faegre.com...

www.dorsey.com...

Links to case

Reading on case. Is this a right that was already given and just affirmed.

Seems that the groundbreaking of individuals to sue the Federal Government came on this case.


In INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983), it was an individual who successfully challenged the so-called legislative veto—a procedure that Congress used in an attempt to invalidate an executive determination without presenting the measure to the President.


www.dorsey.com...


Sorry Mod, click on you by accident.
edit on 19-6-2011 by jam321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Thank you sir.

I'm going to have a blast reviewing this case.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
average wait time to sue the government
in court is about 10 years.

I hope you're patient
and rich for lawyers



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
average wait time to sue the government
in court is about 10 years.

I hope you're patient
and rich for lawyers


So true. But at least it says that we are not alone. That's gotta count for something. At least the insanity has not COMPLETELY taken hold. Not yet, anyway.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Which Justices voted for this, or again' it? I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Lono1
 


Time for me to start preparing a lawsuit against Social Security and Medicare. Thanks to the OP for bringing up this news. Just yesterday I put away a book about lawsuits into storage since I wasn't planning any lawsuit. But now, I may have to bring it back out.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Great to hear. Hurray!!!!!!!!

Yes, it is a long trek to suite the Fed, but it will be worth it.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You know why I hate court battles trying to stop the government from oppressing you?

It's damage control, it's a reaction. It's a massive huge waste of time and can ruin your life.

How about the government just stop messing around and playing dirty? That would fix all of this and I wouldn't have to challenge anything in the first place.

They can mind their business, I'll mind mine, and any interaction we have will be mutually beneficial rather than the one-sided short-end of the stick deal they always hand out.

Well until they leave us alone throw a monkey wrench in the works whenever you can. Always make them follow all the rules - it can take years and they can't put us all in jail.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
So what is SCOTUS saying? It is all right to attack someone with chemicals?

It sounds like someone with a whole lot of money and connections is being allowed to play a lot of games with the legal system. From my read, the only thing that SCOTUS decided, is that she can use the defense that the fed is exceeding their authority, not that she is innocent, nor that the fed actually exceeded their authority.

9-0 vote, sounds like no one disagreed on this. Quite the narrow point that no one is arguing against.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


The original post said 'unanimous', as like in EVERYBODY buddy.
Meaning that whomever-- if civilian, came by and spiked the justices'
water carafes with whatever compound deserves a Congressional
Medal of Freedom, back room.
OMDeity this is supposed to get announced on a Friday so we can
properly celebrate for at least 36 hours. I don't care. I'm breaking
out a packet of hot chocolate with the air bag technology marsh-
mellons; and toast Mr. Samuel Adams, patriot and brewer anyway!



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Hopefully this will stop the feds from unconstitutionally raiding dispensaries and jailing people even though they're following state laws. Even if it doesn't stop the raids/jailings, they can fight it in court and this decision should back up their rights.

Good job Supreme Court



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
It looks like you guys are reading to much into this. People have always been able to sue the federal govt. this mearly afirms that you have the right to do so. Nothing big will change from this ruling.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
This IS groundbreaking! This is a huge precedent for the Marijuana dispensaries along with other hot topics like abortion and MAYBE immigration if I'm not getting my laws mixed up. I foresee the Federal Government about to be backed up with lawsuits if this is genuine and they don't find a loophole somewhere.

A bit off topic... but ever since Ron Paul has announced his run for presidency and has been gaining ground with more and more of the people recognizing him and his stance on the issues, considerably his stance on the Federal Government, I have noticed a lot of action taken against the FG that would, under normal circumstances, would never happen or see the light of day.

Perhaps this is for a new thread... but am I the only one that's seeing this connection?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Excerpt from the new ruling:


Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through theenactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power. True, of course, these objects cannot be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy; but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States. Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within 10 BOND v. UNITED STATES Opinion of the Court a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See ibid. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawfulpowers, that liberty is at stake. The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. See New York, supra, at 181. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balancebetween the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.


www.supremecourt.gov...

This very good news in these times when we are all concerned for our future freedom and U.S. Government tyranny.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
18 U. S. C. §229, which forbids knowing possession or use, for nonpeaceful purposes, of a chemical that “can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans,” §§229(a); 229F(1); (7); (8), and which is part of a federal Act implementing a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States.

It's a shame we can't all sign a petition to file suit against the (It's a shame to have to say) U.S. government for 'chemtrails'. Someone else may be responsible for the fly overs, but it is allowed.





new topics
top topics
 
59
<<   2 >>

log in

join