Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Goldwater Institute - Groundbreaking US Supreme Court decision on the Tenth Amendment
http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/ ^ | June 17 2011 | Arizona Tea Party

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: Roklok

I expect that the Obama WH will soon be filing a lawsuit against the Supreme Court.


21 posted on 06/18/2011 9:47:53 AM PDT by ChocChipCookie (Jonah is my patron saint.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

The 4 court Marxists voted in FAVOR???


22 posted on 06/18/2011 9:53:00 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

It is about time the constitution makes some progress in our judicial branch. First the second amendment was determined to be the right of citizens to bear arms, then the first amendment rights (the cases where the offensive “hate” speech - funeral protestors and the minister who protests Islammists) were determinted to illegally supressed by the politicans and police, and now the tenth amendment which recognizes State’s areas of responsiblity and powers versus Federal responsibilities and powers. The tenth amendment decision is big and could go a long way to balancing the Federal budget as Federal interference into State powers and responsiblities has become almost complete.

The courts have about placed us in a Soviet dictatorship with their love of power - Federal officials, corporations and leftists without regard to the constitution.

We need to reclaim the fourth amendment from the police state that has grown and become abusive and dangerous to innocent citizens in the name of our war on Islamic terrorism and our war on drugs. It has become a war on American citizens through political correctness where all Americans are now deemed suspected domestic terrorists w/o cause.

I want to see what power the constitution has in the face of the President and Senate surrendering our constitutional rights and form of government to globalist megalomanic freaks. If the courts give standing to the congressmen suing the President over using the power of the UN and NATO to declare war thereby ingoring the constitutional power of our Congress over war and it’s spending, that will open a whole can of worms on unconstitutional treaties and unelected, foreign global authorities. Obama plans to use UN treaty authority to ban the second amendment.


23 posted on 06/18/2011 10:00:50 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Wow. This is HUGH!

and the original opinion going right to my flash drive.

24 posted on 06/18/2011 10:43:13 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits [A.Einstein])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
God bless Clarence Thomas. For years he was the only SC Justice who even knew the Tenth Amendment existed.
25 posted on 06/18/2011 10:43:46 AM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Here's a pdf link to the decision
Bond vs United States (its only 19 pages)
26 posted on 06/18/2011 10:56:58 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits [A.Einstein])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson; rxsid; LucyT; Red Steel; Nachum; Jack Black; archy

Just pinging a few names - don’t know of any legal/Constitution ping list but there probably is one.

More explanations of what this all means, for the legalese-impaired, much appreciated.


27 posted on 06/18/2011 11:33:34 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Thanks for the ping...reading the SCOTUS opinion.


28 posted on 06/18/2011 12:25:55 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

This should signal the end of Obamacare.

Everything in O-care is a violation of state sovereignty.


29 posted on 06/18/2011 12:34:44 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher

>> “Why would the collectivists on the high court side with the conservatives?” <<

.
Because it could also be a boon to enviro-Nutzies.


30 posted on 06/18/2011 12:36:50 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ChocChipCookie
I expect that the Obama WH will soon be filing a lawsuit against the Supreme Court.

Nah, he'll just say it doesn't apply to him and ignore it.

31 posted on 06/18/2011 12:55:46 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama is the least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Scotusblog is easier to read with plain English summaries along with the usual links to original documents.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bond-v-united-states/


32 posted on 06/18/2011 1:25:45 PM PDT by PeteCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I’ll keep checking for simple summaries in babytalk.

;-)


33 posted on 06/18/2011 1:32:22 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Looks like a good opportunity to tackle the TSA


34 posted on 06/18/2011 1:46:16 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (We kneel to no prince but the Prince of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Does this mean that someone, anyone, somewhere indeed has standing to question the legitimacy of our president?

Just asking.


35 posted on 06/23/2011 11:09:32 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

Yes, individuals now have standing. Can you sue the President? Dunno.

From SCOTUS blog plain english :

The court of appeals ruled against her, holding that she didn’t even have the legal right (which we call “standing”) to bring the claim, because only a state could argue that Congress had infringed upon state power. At the Supreme Court, Bond got some help from an unexpected source: the federal government, which agreed with her that she had the right to challenge the law

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bond-v-united-states/


36 posted on 06/23/2011 11:50:55 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

I was being sarcastic-standing to sue applies only when a law or prosposed law injures a person or entity in crinimal law. Since the law and US CONS does not hurt anyone in the matter of our defacto president, none of us are indeed injured by the law.

The matter seems to be a civil one-someone gaining an advantage by not complying with a law or standard. I think this will be the means of resovling the issue, but not sure who has the ability to sue, other than the US Consitution.... After all, the administration/executive branch is charged with upholding/enforcing the law....

Perhaps a lawyer could chime in....


37 posted on 06/24/2011 12:22:07 PM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson