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.
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.
"If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz is stepping up to the plate to fight this globalist broadside.
“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner. “The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty
In a speech delivered to the Heritage Foundation, Cruz said the Justice Department’s arguments before the highest court represent “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment and other constitutional rights the global elite are working overtime to eradicate.
The Constitution has the final say
A treaty has the force of a law, which means that it's subject to constitutional constraints. In theory, if a treaty conflicted with the Bill of Rights, it would be overturned by the Supreme Court, which has final power to rule on constitutional issues.
(That applies only to US citizens. If it violates the rights of people in other countries, it's up to their constitution to protect them.)
In practice the Supreme Court has yet to find a treaty unconstitutional, but the treaty adoption process does not override the Constitution.
Issue: (1) Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Holland.
Aug 19 2013 CIRCULATED.
Aug 20 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 5, 2013.
Aug 29 2013 Application (13A237) to extend the time to file a reply brief on the merits from
September 9, 2013 to September 16, 2013, submitted to Justice Alito.
Sep 4 2013 Application (13A237) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until September 16, 2013.
Sep 11 2013 Record from USCA Third Circuit is electronic.
Sep 11 2013 Record from the USDC for the District of Pennsylvania is electronic.
Sep 16 2013 Reply of petitioner Carol Anne Bond filed. (Distributed)
Oct 7 2013 Motion of Cato Institute, et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED.
reply to post by elouina
So Carnival Cruz said something and the "EXAMINER" for fugs sakes reported it and it is gospel. Then the other confirming link is Infowars.
Ha ha ha ha. Cat litter for the front page.
Find us a USSC case that is before the court. I am NOT going to do your work for you. But go ahead and substantiate this garbage. Get a PACER account.
edit on 31-10-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)
The Supreme Court certified modified versions of both questions from Bond's subsequent appeal of the Third Circuit's new decision:
1.Whether the Constitution provides any limitations on federalism in the course of implementing via statute legally valid treaties.
2.Whether an interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act can be made to avoid reviewing Holland.
Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a Tenth Amendment case; the Supreme Court of the United States decided in late June 2011 that standing can sometimes be established by individuals, not just states, when Tenth Amendment challenges are raised in objection to a federal law.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that Bond had standing to argue that a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention in this instance intruded on areas of police power reserved to the states.
The Chemical Weapons Convention obligates the United States to outlaw the use, production, and retention of weapons consisting of toxic chemicals. The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act outlaws the possession or use of toxic chemicals, except for peaceful purposes.