Posted on 06/18/2011 8:36:30 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
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.
In short, freedom advocates like us just got a green light from the USSC to bring more cases under the 10th Amendment. This will have huge—positive—implications for freedom so long as the current constitution of the court holds.
Here is our favorite passage: “Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment 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.” We will put this precedent to work immediately when we file our opening brief in the Obamacare lawsuit Monday, and also in our defense of Save Our Secret Ballot against the NLRB challenge, and many more cases to come.
One other important note: Sometimes little cases make big constitutional law. This case involved a woman who was prosecuted under federal law for harassing her husband’s girlfriend—not the set of facts ordinarily creating an important precedent. Some of our cases, too, are seemingly “little” but with big principles at stake.
Freedom is making strides in the courtroom, and we’ll do our best to keep that momentum going. Thank you for your support that makes it possible.
Outstanding!
Bump
It harkens back to that whole Bill of Rights thing that liberals like to forget is for individuals.
Why haven’t we seen this reported by the main stream media?
Let me guess, they are communist sympathizers!
My first thought was how helpful this is to the VA suit our AG Cuccinelli brought vs. Obamacare. VA had enacted a law that prohibited the mandate that is key to O’care.
Supreme Court Allows Defendant’s 10th Amendment Challenge in Paramour Poison Case
Interesting.
Why would the collectivists on the high court side with the conservatives?
Just wondering...
sfl
The problem is...The Federal Government usurped the powers of the states very early on. The indian treaty law of 1790 is an example.
That right there would grab the attention of 5 of the justices. Now, for the other 4 ~ what is the deal? Well, there's this business of an individual having a right to attempt to kill a romantic rival and yet have it tried under state law rather than federal law.
I think you don't have to go further than that ~ state courts are no doubt kinder to elderly ladies than are federal courts, and the women's prisons are closer to home ~ meaning friends and family can visit.
That actually takes care of only 3 of them because there's this mind-numbed Leftwingtard guy left, so why would he vote for that.
I'm guessing that if we go back through his legal history we will find BUSINESS cases where a treaty caused the federales to go one way whereas his friends on Wallstreet would have preferred New York's rules!
Not that the Constitution was followed all that closely. New York State figured out a way around it. They declared that the Oneida Indians, earstwhile American allies in the Revolutionary War, were, in fact, white folks, then argued that white folks couldn't own an Indian reserve. They then seized the land and sold it off to illegal aliens.
Not much different than the way things get handled these days.
wonderful news! thank you for posting this.
Sounds great ,,, but the state attorney general is in the pocket of the Socialist/Communist governor o’Mally . We may need the Contras to liberate our state from the liberals excessive oppression first ,,, or perhaps a “FAST and Furious” Gunwalker type program to arm the citizenry against the tyrants .
Our Governor is very much like the bamster ,,, he imposed a millionaires tax in the state a couple years back and most of our wealthiest citizens have moved from the state . Now he's got to go back to the middle class to recover the lost revenue . How brilliant is all that ???
WELCOME TO THE NANNY STATE OF MARYLAND .
What case was this from?
(( ping ))
This is a very encouraging ruling. The implications are far-reaching, if I understand this correctly.
Bttt
OHHH!!! HONEY HUSH!! IT IS GAME TIME!
Of course, the cynical side of me says that this is just a way for all challenges to federal abuses to be exhausted more quickly . . .
Hmmmm. Double edged, BUT STILL IT IS A SWORD!
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.