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.

[TheOldLady]

Thanks for the best ping in decades.

It seems that the USSC finally noticed the impending downfall of the country and decided to do something about it.

[Condor51]

More than a biggie this is HUGH,
and it was unanimous which is SERIES.

I've had visions of Durbin throwing darts at pics of his 'progressive' Justices since this came out Friday

[sergeantdave]

This tells the criminal fascist syndicate occupying Washington that states and the citizens living there are not your slaves. This will infuriate obuma, the fascist bureaucracy and the criminal congress.

Time to remove the federal fascists from states. Start passing laws and increase the states’ defense budgets and training. Some of these federal pigs will need to be run back to Washington at the point of a bayonet.

[jpsb]

I wonder why Justice Thomas gets’ it but Justice Scalia doesn’t. Scalia is a smart guy but Thomas’ logic is bullet proof. What’s up with this.

[green iguana]

Thanks for the ping.

I'm glad Bond has standing to sue, but I'll withhold praise for the court until I see that she actually wins the case against the Feds on 10th amendment grounds. Or anyone, for that matter.

[Tribune7]

It looks like it was unanimous with Ginsburg & Breyer writing a CONCURRING opinion.

[Stalwart]

Unanimous? Wow.

My view is that even the Judiciary is starting to fear Leviathan.

[Idabilly]

Wow. Just, wow! Obama must have pissed in Ginsburg's cereal regarding federal law and medical marijuana. I'll take it however I can get it. Long live the 10th Amendment!

JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE BREYER joins,concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion and write separately to make the following observation.

Bond, like any other defendant,has a personal right not to be convicted under a constitu-tionally invalid law. See Fallon, As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 Harv. L. Rev.1321, 1331–1333 (2000); Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 3. See also North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 739 (1969) (Black, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“Due process . . . is a guarantee that a man should be tried and convicted only in accordance withvalid laws of the land.”). In this case, Bond argues that the statute under whichshe was charged, 18 U. S. C. §229, exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers and violates the Tenth Amendment. Other defendants might assert that a law exceeds Con-gress’ power because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, or the Establishment Clause, or the Due Process Clause. Whatever the claim, success on the merits would requirereversal of the conviction. “An offence created by [anunconstitutional law],” the Court has held, “is not a crime.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 376 (1880). “A conviction under [such a law] is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of impris-onment.” Id., at 376–377. If a law is invalid as applied tothe criminal defendant’s conduct, the defendant is entitled to go free. For this reason, a court has no “prudential” license todecline to consider whether the statute under which the defendant has been charged lacks constitutional applica-tion to her conduct. And that is so even where the consti-tutional provision that would render the conviction void is directed at protecting a party not before the Court. Our decisions concerning criminal laws infected with discrimi-nation are illustrative. The Court must entertain the objection—and reverse the conviction—even if the right toequal treatment resides in someone other than the de-fendant. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 452–455 (1972) (reversing conviction for distributing contraceptives because the law banning distribution violated the recipi-ent’s right to equal protection); cf. Craig v. Boren, 429 U. S. 190, 192, 210, and n. 24 (1976) (law penalizing sale of beer to males but not females aged 18 to 20 could not be enforced against vendor). See also Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 107, n. 2 (1972); Welsh v. United States, 398 U. S. 333, 361–362 (1970) (Harlan, J., concur-ring in result) (reversal required even if, going forward, Congress would cure the unequal treatment by extending rather than invalidating the criminal proscription). In short, a law “beyond the power of Congress,” for any reason, is “no law at all.” Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 341 (1928).

[cowboyway]

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.

I'm betting that Zero is throwing a major temper tantrum. I feel sorry for his little golf ball...

[greyfoxx39]

Important SCOTUS ruling ping.

[rockrr]

Thanks for pinging me to this. I’m glad to see it.

[bvw]

It’s a very potent contrast when you quote the few passages free of the blight of stare decisis. As a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion of the kind that greatly needed in that court, it is clear that only ONE Justice is capable. For even the superb laser-like reasoning of the acclaimed Scalia is shown to be inchoate meaningless drivel in that example.

The utter deficiency of true great and bold men (or women) in the courts, in Congress, in the higher ranks of the Military and in most large establishments public and private, is best exemplified by the tolerance of having a usurper in the office of President, and by the horrible breach of duty by the Chief Justice, the Vice President standing as President of the Senate, the whole of the Congress, the whole of Electoral College, the Secretaries of State in all states and territories, and the courts before whom challenges were rejected unheard, in allowing that fraud and traitor Obama to be sworn in.

[Brass Lamp]

Oh, wow! Thanks for the tap. Unexpected good news often confuses me, and this has me confused. Let's hope this is a step toward the restoration of Madisonian federalism.

[Still Thinking]

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.

Not only that, but if you force all the states to be essentially administrative units of the national juggernaut, that single homogeneous policy can be far more intrusive than could the policy of a single state from which the citizens can flee at will. So not only does it ease tensions by allowing "different strokes for different folks", but exerts a restraining influence on the level of tyranny nationwide.

It forces the states to maintain at least a minimum level of competition to keep the productive citizens. Witness the fate of the People's Republic of Kalifornia over the past couple decades.

[bvw]

True!

[Still Thinking]

I don’t understand how the same court that just told us a couple weeks ago that the Fourth Amendment is written on toilet paper could come up with a decision which is to all appearances so right. I suspect some chicanery at work. Has anyone here read the entire decision?

[Ken H]

I've only read excerpts, but it seems to me that this ruling, while a good one, is not that earthshaking. An individual now has standing to challenge a law on 10th Amendment grounds, but it does nothing to Wickard case law (see post #16).

Think about it. Does anyone actually believe that Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg or Sotameyer are going to do anything that reins in the Wickard Commerce Clause?

[bvw]

Boost to you babe.

[Idabilly]

I suspect some chicanery at work. Has anyone here read the entire decision?

I think you're correct. It maybe that the lefties on the court see future challenges to the federal drug laws. They must gain favor before hand. There have been several 'pot' distributors that have been busted by federal agencies lately (Spokane, Wa)...

Sadly, the wackjobs on the court will never cite this case for second amendment violations.

[Still Thinking]

Think about it. Does anyone actually believe that Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg or Sotameyer are going to do anything that reins in the Wickard Commerce Clause?

May not matter. You only need 5. Besides, who cares what Stevens thinks? He's a private comrade citizen-serf now!