Fyi
We one one?
That’s pretty series.
How about chemical and grenade attacks on US citizens by law enforcement agents of the government?
Is that still allowed?
I assume you meant we WON one today?
A SCOTUS ruling that cites the TENTH amendment???????
Amazing.
Of course, I expect the Clown and Eric the Red to ignore it anyway.
Unanimous—with three concurring opinions, by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, with Roberts writing for the majority. For those inclined to read such things, here is some good summer reading.
“Pennsylvania’s laws are sufficient to prosecute assaults like Bond’s, and there is no indication in section 229 that Congress intended to abandon its traditional “reluctan[ce] to define as a federal crime conduct readily denounced as criminal by the States,” Bass, supra, at 349. That principle goes to the very structure of the Constitution, and “protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in contrast, come right out an accuse the majority of doing the job of Congress in rewriting the law to achieve the desired result. They start from the simple premise that the role of the Court since Marbury v. Madison is to apply the law as written -- no more, no less. They go on to state that the Chemical Warfare Treaty Act is clear on its face and clearly applies to the Defendant's conduct, and the issue is whether the Act is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as applied to the Defendant. They hold that it is not.
“In our federal system. the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the People retain the remainder.”
Sotomayor must have about hucked her guts having to sign onto a decision containing that affirmation.
Scalia’s concurrence is stellar; his textual analysis of the Federal Law in question concludes NOT that the Federal Law does not apply, but that it applies unconstitutionally, and is, therefore, null and void.
Roberts, writing the opinion, takes pages to examine the question of whether the Federal Law applies to the defendant’s acts. Scalia’s concise analysis runs less than a page. Brevity is not only the soul of wit, but very often the beating heart of Truth, as well. Belabored explanations arouse our suspicions for the good reason that they so frequently belie a vacuity of truth at their roots.
Scalia explains, “The Court does not think the interpretive exercise so simple. But that is only because its result-driven, antitextualism befogs what is evident.” His subsequent dismantling of the Opinion of The Court is truly a thing of beauty as he demonstrates, point-by-point why The Court ruled correctly for erroneous reasons.
Dear God in Heaven, give me eight more “Scalias” and we might, at long last, witness a full restoration of the vigor and stature of this once-mighty Representative Republic as a Nation of Laws “with Liberty, and Justice for all.”
I don’t understand what this means.
i wonder if holder is trying to tie the fact that we all breathe out toxic CO2 with war crimes.