Bond v. U.S., A Most Important Victory for Federalism

Pajamas Media ^ | June 18th, 2011 | Clarice Feldman

[ForGod'sSake]

The Goldwater Institute is praising yesterday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision in Bond v. U.S.:

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. Click here to read the decision.

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.

[ForGod'sSake]

This could be a BIGGIE...

[ForGod'sSake]

Some additional comments from JUSTICE KENNEDY:

The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counter-intuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.

. . .

Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: ‘Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.’”

[HiTech RedNeck]

Both lefties and righties must have lots of dogs in this fight.

[ForGod'sSake]

Both lefties and righties must have lots of dogs in this fight.

I'm a little surprised the left hasn't been all over the 10th Amendment to secure their "rights" in the several states to sodomy, dope smoking, and other forms of degeneracy they might enjoy in like minded states.

[sloop]

the decision

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

hope your thread does not get invaded by the birferz like mine did

does this mean i have standing now?

[shibumi]

Ping - for probably the best thing to come out of the USSC in decades.

The spirit of the decision is true to the Founders, and a staggering blow to the wave of statism trying to engulf us.

[shibumi]

Ping

[ForGod'sSake]

Hi sloop. I meant to ping you to this thread after running across yours in the “chat” forum. I think this needs to be in news because of its potential impact and hopefully a lot more Freepers will see it. I don’t mind the birthers so much as long as a thread hijacking doesn’t take place. I think there’s a pretty strong case against the muzzie in the white hut.

[sloop]

thanks - i never post threads but could not find one about this - and wondering if i was the only one that thought it was important

i hope mark levin addresses it on his show tomorrow

[HiTech RedNeck]

That was part of the reason for the American “experiment.” Individual states could be havens for things that their neighboring states believed unconscionable, and each would enforce its own rules in its own territory.

[ForGod'sSake]

i hope mark levin addresses it on his show tomorrow

Let's hope so. It needs to get more attention. The only "mainstream" media outlet that's touched it so far that I could find is THE WSJ.

[ForGod'sSake]

That was part of the reason for the American “experiment.Individual states could be havens for things that their neighboring states believed unconscionable, and each would enforce its own rules in its own territory.”

Indeed! All of which makes me wonder if libtards may not be content to impose their degeneracy on just a few states. They must feel it necessary to compel EVERYBODY to live their misguided sense of utopia. Misery loves company or somesuch.

Now it's off to bed with me. WAY past my bedtime.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well with this case, it looks like it will become harder for “libtards” to wish a gutter agenda upon all states by coercing it through Uncle Sam. They will have to try to make their sale 50 times and some customers will be tough.

[djf]

Got STANDING????

U doo now!!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

A little sanity in the court system for a change. About time, since Mexico gets to submit briefs in federal cases challenging state laws it doesn’t like.

[Ken H]

That's good, but how do you get past the following, which is the current SCOTUS view of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause?

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich

______________________________________

As Justice Thomas put it:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything; and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

J. Thomas, dissenting in Raich

[Recovering_Democrat]

They chose to go the “due process” route, and thereby make a whore of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court went along FOR YEARS!

If we can get a few SCOTUS justices benched who believe in a correct, more narrow application of the 14th amendment, we wouldn’t have a lot of the garbage law current in society.

[Mortrey]

Bookmarked!

[50mm]

Ping - for probably the best thing to come out of the USSC in decades.

You got that right. This could lead to the end of bad statist law on everything from the coming ban on 100w incandescent bulbs to obamacare.

[central_va]

After 150 years of FedGov™ activism, NOW the supreme court gets it? This ruling is like taking the EMPTY bottle away from the drunk, a nice symbolic gesture.

IMO FedGov™ is all powerful now, the only way to stop it is to secede from it.