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.
I expect that the Obama WH will soon be filing a lawsuit against the Supreme Court.
The 4 court Marxists voted in FAVOR???
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.
and the original opinion going right to my flash drive.
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.
Thanks for the ping...reading the SCOTUS opinion.
This should signal the end of Obamacare.
Everything in O-care is a violation of state sovereignty.
>> “Why would the collectivists on the high court side with the conservatives?” <<
.
Because it could also be a boon to enviro-Nutzies.
Nah, he'll just say it doesn't apply to him and ignore it.
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/
I’ll keep checking for simple summaries in babytalk.
;-)
Looks like a good opportunity to tackle the TSA
Does this mean that someone, anyone, somewhere indeed has standing to question the legitimacy of our president?
Just asking.
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/
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....
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.