Posted on 06/04/2014 3:37:01 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously rejected the Justice Department's effort to expand the Chemical Weapons Convention's reach into garden-variety domestic crimes, throwing out the federal conviction of a Pennsylvania woman who used a chemical irritant to get back at a romantic rival.
The Chemical Weapons Convention, implemented through a 1998 law, "deals with crimes of deadly seriousness," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, rejecting its use to prosecute a minor assault.
The ruling maintained the government's ability to use the treaty when going after major crimes, including acts of terrorism. Prosecutors have invoked the treaty in domestic cases involving a plot to attack a federal courthouse and the detonation of a homemade chlorine bomb, among others.
"The federal government undoubtedly has a substantial interest in enforcing criminal laws against assassination, terrorism," Justice Roberts wrote. "Nothing we have said here will disrupt the government's authority to prosecute such offenses."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Unanimous?! Wow. I wouldn’t think you could get the U.S.S.C. to unanimously vote against eating a manure-sandwich.
Treaties don’t trump our Constitution- reaffirmed .
And local cops: We’ll decide what’s Constitutional or not.
“Treaties don’t trump our Constitution- reaffirmed.”
Do you by any chance live in WA or CO? Because if you’re reading that into the decision there’s got to be some kind of heroic smoking going on in your neighborhood.
The court took CAREFUL pains to NOT address tenth amendment protections. I quote the decision: “...the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.”
The decision was largely based on the logic that trying (and failing) to cause an uncomfortable rash obviously does not rise to the definition of “chemical weapons use” under the terms of the treaty.
The opinion stated that the court “generally” doesn’t like to unilaterally apply federal law or treaties to limited local law enforcement unless “...Congress has clearly indicated that the law should have such reach”.
Note, the court didn’t come out and say that treaties don’t reach into your living-room, quite the opposite they affirmed that Congress can indeed sign a treaty that reaches down into local law enforcement and snatches your TV remote away from you.
The court simply said that in this case the woman’s use of a chemical irritant didn’t rise to the level of “chemical weapons use”, that Congress probably wasn’t intending the treaty to be used in this fashion, and chose to almost entirely ignore the constitutional question since there were simpler and more narrowly defined elements to rule on.
The preamble and reasoning of the decision instead indicate what we jaded people with knowledge of constitutional law already knew, namely that the interstate commerce clause along with the necessary and proper clause are sufficient to torpedo most tenth amendment claims.
Summary — stop smoking that stuff dude, before you start thinking the supreme court is handing down decisions regarding dragons.
Talk about ass-backwards — the Constitution should be the starting point, the place where you put your axioms, so to speak.
“Talk about ass-backwards — the Constitution should be the starting point, the place where you put your axioms, so to speak.”
Perhaps.
The court’s reasoning is that it’s better to decide a case as narrowly as possible to effect immediate justice in the case under consideration, rather than treating every new case as a chance to write new law and change how the country works.
Treating every, single case as first and only a chance to make new case law is a recipe for judicial activism and, paradoxically, encourages a progressive movement further away from constitutional originalism under the weight of ever-expanding precedent.
So, the court, at least the conservative side of it, takes the conservative policy that it’s best to judge an individual case by existing law and precedent whenever possible rather than using every new case as an excuse to re-interpret the constitution.
Naturally the very existence of the court and the process of judicial review is predicated on constitutionality, it’s just that it’s not always necessary to issue new edicts governing constitutional interpretation in order to issue a ruling that is constitutionally correct. There is a huge body of existing precedent, and it’s not necessary to write more for every single case. Expecting a new constitutional ruling every time the court grants cert would be bloody chaos.
Just as you don’t need new congressional legislation to authorize swatting a fly in your kitchen, it’s a bad idea to write new case law to cover every single case that crosses the court’s desk. Creating reams of new rules governing constitutional interpretation with every case is not good business; it’s inefficient, troublesome, and ripe for misuse. Better to reserve revising accepted constitutional interpretations for extreme cases that can’t be decided narrowly with existing precedent.
At least that’s how the conservatives on the court view it. The liberal courts take your view, and use any and every case as a chance to issue new constitutional axioms.
No, not at all the case.
The axioms
are the Constitution — generally the 'liberal' side invents new ones where the 'conservative' side tends to ignore present ones.
Treating every, single case as first and only a chance to make new case law is a recipe for judicial activism and, paradoxically, encourages a progressive movement further away from constitutional originalism under the weight of ever-expanding precedent.
Ah, so then originalism is had by embracing precedent? Ridiculous.
The court’s reasoning is that it’s better to decide a case as narrowly as possible to effect immediate justice in the case under consideration, rather than treating every new case as a chance to write new law and change how the country works.
And here I thought that the legislature, not the courts, were supposed to write new law.
“And here I thought that the legislature, not the courts, were supposed to write new law.”
You sound a bit like a cell-block lawyer, long on ideas relating to perceived injustices and thin on understanding.
As a definition, the courts are responsible for establishing what is known as case law — the procedural and formulaic principles that govern the administration of the law. Case law is an essential element of the legal system in this and other countries, and one that frequently trips up ignorant people who assume legislation is the only type law that needs worrying about. Regulatory law is another abstract concept that results in much pain and suffering for ignorant self-dubbed lawyers.
Your statements illustrate painfully that you’re unaware of the basis of judicial review, as it is in and of itself the very definition of case law. The supreme court invented the constitutional review powers you were so vocally demanding they use more of, and they invented them by writing new case law. See Marbury v. Madison.
You argue that the supreme court needs to be writing new case law, and then you say that the courts shouldn’t write new case law. You argue against the courts writing law, and with the same virtual breath demand they write laws. You say on the one hand that the court shouldn’t write new laws, but that it should use the new laws it writes to write more new laws! Beautiful!
Please, I would deeply appreciate it if you would stop offering your heartfelt opinions on topics that you’re very ignorant of. I understand knowledge of a topic is not an essential prerequisite for developing VERY strong opinions about it, and it takes the fun out of the whole opinion business for some, but you can enjoy your uninformed opinions almost as much without inflicting them on others.
The ruling is because this administration was in effect writing new law by ignoring the actual intent of the law.
The court is really just saying “You can’t do that”, it’s not like they are making gay marriage laws out of whole cloth
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.