For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
An Interesting 10th Amendment Case That Doesn’t Seem Like One
Written By : Warner Todd Huston

Sometimes standing up for the Constitution seems a bit annoying, especially in the case of violent felon Mrs. Carol Bond. Fortunately, standing for the Constitution here doesn’t necessarily release a horrible woman into freedom, but it does help to spotlight some unconstitutional federal overreach. In this case, it also centers on the Tenth Amendment, or the reserved powers clause.

The violent felon in question, Mrs. Bond, was found guilty of using various chemicals to perpetrate an acid attack on her husband’s girlfriend. She was convicted of mixing several noxious chemicals and throwing them on her rival causing minor burns. Instead of just charging her on state charges of assault and battery or other such things, the federal government decided to step in and prosecute her for violating a treaty governing chemicals signed with foreign governments.

Mrs. Bond’s lawyers have brought this case before the Supreme Court of the United States claiming that due to the Tenth Amendment she cannot be tried for violating foreign treaties because the incident happened inside the borders of an American state and, therefore, her home state has jurisdiction and the federal government does not.

Whether one is comfortable siding with a woman who would throw acid on her husband’s mistress or not, the woman’s legal team is right. If the federal government can begin to cruise through the states trying and convicting people based on foreign treaties we would necessarily be eliminating all rights of the states to prosecute domestic criminals.

Phyllis Schlafly had a commentary on this on the 22nd that is interesting to hear. Schlafly sums up the case as that of federal overreach.

The federal law applied against Mrs. Bond is based on an arms-control treaty never intended to justify prosecution for the misuse of chemicals in a domestic dispute. Since the Supreme Court took this case, it creates the possibility of strengthening the limits on federal power.

The Tenth Amendment, of course, has to do with delineating what powers are reserved to the federal government and what is in the sphere of the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth specifically relegates only those powers actually mentioned in the Constitution as those allotted to the federal government and has increasingly been cited by states decrying illicit federal powergrabs. The Tenth has formed as the chief basis for repealing Obamacare.

0
  • Anonymous

    “…the federal government decided to step in and prosecute her…”

    the utter, total failure of a racist, incompetent joke and disgrace to America known as “holder”, “You Lie!” hussein’s imbecile AG, strikes again.

  • Toastrider

    Interesting. What motivation did the feds have for prosecuting her under such pretenses in the first place?

    Very odd, to put it mildly. Were the chemicals unusual or hard to procure?

    • Good Ol Boy

      Thats exactly what I was wondering about too. It seems like a pretty bizarre case for the Feds to take.

  • robert108

    It’s good to remember that our Civil War was fought primarily over the Tenth Amendment. Those are deep and deadly waters.

    • Toastrider

      Ugh. No offense, but this is a pet peeve of mine. No matter how nicely you dress up the states’ rights issue, it’s really hard to defend the principle when it involves owning other people.

      Honestly, the situation is closer to the American Revolution in terms of various offenses committed against the people of the U.S.

    • abcxyz

      So what? Did you know that the slave owners also used oxygen? You are treading on thin ice when you do the same. I heard Hitler used his brain on more than one occasion. Congrats, I think you steered clear of that land mine.

  • Jim

    This case might be more complicated that it appears. Only the federal government can make a treaty with foreign governments. If there are terms in a treaty which establish certain actions to be unlawful when perpetrated by respective citizens of the countries that sign the treaty, then the Federal Governemnt, rather than the states, would be the correct law enforcement entity to prosecute its citizens for committing such unlawful acts as deliniated in the treaty.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info

Users Online