BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

[peach174]

This was about the overreach of the Federal Government who used an International Chemical Treaty Law to incarcerate Bond who served 6 years.
In the courts ruling 9 to 0 the Supreme Court ruled that the Feds can not use an international treaty law for what should have been a domestic family State law.

Paul Clement, Bond’s lawyer, argues that federal prosecutors had no business interfering with a local matter and charging his client under a section of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
Under the federal law, Bond was sentenced to six years in federal prison. Clement says if her prosecution had been left to state law enforcement, she would have likely been sentenced to around 25months. He says that while regrettable, her acts do not fall under the warlike conduct that the federal law is meant to target

This case raises fundamental questions about whether there are any limits on Congress’ authority to implement an international treaty,” Clement said.

Georgetown Law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who filed a brief in support of Bond on behalf of the libertarian Cato Institute, agrees.

“This case implicates a basic axiom of constitutional law, which is that federal power is limited,” he said. “The administration’s position in this case is inconsistent with that basic axiom. According to the Solicitor General, Congress’s power is not limited to the subjects listed in the Constitution; it can be increased, at will, by treaty.”
Rosenkranz urges the court to overturn the precedent. “The constitution gives Congress limited power and Holland seems to say that a treaty can increase that power, potentially without limit,” he said.

All of the Supreme Court agreed that the Feds can not have unlimited power over the States.

 

[Vigilante]

This was about the overreach of the Federal Government who used an International Chemical Treaty Law to incarcerate Bond who served 6 years.
In the courts ruling 9 to 0 the Supreme Court ruled that the Feds can not use an international treaty law for what should have been a domestic family State law.

Paul Clement, Bond’s lawyer, argues that federal prosecutors had no business interfering with a local matter and charging his client under a section of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
Under the federal law, Bond was sentenced to six years in federal prison. Clement says if her prosecution had been left to state law enforcement, she would have likely been sentenced to around 25months. He says that while regrettable, her acts do not fall under the warlike conduct that the federal law is meant to target

This case raises fundamental questions about whether there are any limits on Congress’ authority to implement an international treaty,” Clement said.

Georgetown Law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who filed a brief in support of Bond on behalf of the libertarian Cato Institute, agrees.

“This case implicates a basic axiom of constitutional law, which is that federal power is limited,” he said. “The administration’s position in this case is inconsistent with that basic axiom. According to the Solicitor General, Congress’s power is not limited to the subjects listed in the Constitution; it can be increased, at will, by treaty.”
Rosenkranz urges the court to overturn the precedent. “The constitution gives Congress limited power and Holland seems to say that a treaty can increase that power, potentially without limit,” he said.

All of the Supreme Court agreed that the Feds can not have unlimited power over the States.

RIGHT ON!

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

COME ON PEACH'S, WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS???...You called Cruz, as sharp as an eraser, where's YOUR POINT?

 

[Vigilante]

You don't need to be a lawyer to know what day it was when she was convicted. lol

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

COME ON PEACH'S, WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS???

Once you jaywalk, you have all the credentials you need.

You'd get hit by a car....as a matter of fact, literally you did in this thread!

 

[Little-Acorn]

In case anybody in this thread wants to debate what the case was actually about and how the Court ruled.....

The Opinion of the Court (which all 9 justices voted for) said that the Chemical Weapons Act (and the treaty that spawned it) was effective only against terrorists, acts of war, etc., not about some domestic dispute where one citizen tried to poison another because she was jealous or something.

But Scalia pointed out in a "Concurring Opinion" a very different conclusion, which sounds like a strange procedure to me. He said that in the treaty's phrasing, there is nothing in the Chemical Weapons Act that excludes a simple domestic crime like attempted poisoning of one citizen by another, from the jurisdiction of the Chemical Weapons Act... and so the Chemical Weapons Act itself is unconstitutional. Since it gives the Federal government police power over U.S. citizens, something that the Supreme Court has always said the Fed Govt has no authority to have. Only states and lower governments have that power.

Scalia was writing a Concurring Opinion when he said that, not an Opinion of the Court. So I guess it's not part of the "official" Supreme Court ruling. But it's a shot across the bow of people who want to try to use the Treaty Power to overrule Constitutional restrictions on what Congress can enact.

 

[peach174]

This tells you just how far left this administration is when even the liberal judges of the court rules against their over reach on wanting to use international treaties over our constitution.

This was a very important case on the scope of reach of federal power, with implicating for proposed treaties on gun control, limits on parental authority, and state sovereignty.
This is what this administrating was trying to do by defending it. If they had won all international treaties would be able to violate our constitutional rights.

All 9 judges ruled for our individual freedom, this was a very big victory for us, the citizens of the United States.

 

[Vigilante]

The title of this OP should read “ANOTHER RIGHT WING LIE EXPOSED.”
Yep, folks, some of us actually click on the links to get clues as to the veracity of Right-wing attacks on our beloved Commander in Chief. This op fails miserably upon closer examination.

Not only did I review the original material, I ventured off into a world where legalese is the native language and found the original briefs. Obama had nothing to do with any stage of the Bond vs United States case. The local police refused to do their job. But it didn’t stop there. Because the mailbox was involved, the local cops suggested the desperate woman call the Postal Inspectors.

Between November 2006 and June 2007, Bond went to Haynes's home on at least 24 occasions and spread the chemicals on her car door, mailbox, and door knob. These attempted assaults were almost entirely unsuccessful. The chemicals that Bond used are easy to see, and Haynes was able to avoid them all but once. On that occasion, Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn on her thumb, which she treated by rinsing with water. Haynes repeatedly called the local police to report the suspicious substances, but they took no action. When Haynes found powder on her mailbox, she called the police again, who told her to call the post office. Haynes did so, and postal inspectors placed surveillance cameras around her home. The cameras caught Bond opening Haynes's mailbox, stealing an envelope, and stuffing potassium dichromate inside the muffler of Haynes's car.

Did Obama orchestrate the whole thing? Heck no, and it is laughable to even consider such nonsense!

Federal prosecutors naturally charged Bond with two counts of mail theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1708 . More surprising, they also charged her with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon, in violation of section 229(a)

Initial charges were filed during the preliminary investigation and later revalidated by federal prosecutors as being worthy of consideration. Influencing that controversial decision to include section 229 was the past experience of dealing with the Anthrax mailings.
The Conservative Tribune is no more credible than the National Enquirer and anything quoted therein should be suspect. If “conservatives” allow this rag to pose as the ultimate right wing icon of conservative thought, they are lost. The boldness of this false propaganda is shocking. Even more surprising is the following quote by a standing Senator who gleefully endorses, or is possibly the author of this lie:

Today’s ‪#*SCOTUS‬ ruling in Bond v. United States is an important victory for federalism. For the tenth time since January 2012, the Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s argument for increased federal power.

Good to see you missed the point completely of the story.....

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

STILL WAITING ON PEACH'S LAW CREDENTIALS..... the pussy posse can't divert me from PUSHING this for all to see!

COME ON PEACH'S, WHERE ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS???

Once you jaywalk, you have all the credentials you need.

You'd get hit by a car....as a matter of fact, literally you did in this thread!

How about crossing a train track unlawfully?

 

[Vigilante]

Once you jaywalk, you have all the credentials you need.

You'd get hit by a car....as a matter of fact, literally you did in this thread!

How about crossing a train track unlawfully?

You'd get the message... might be your last one, but you'd get it!

 

[Dot Com]

I don't like all the Big Gov't policies enacted under the previous Repub Admin either just because they "fell asleep at the wheel" Why should all of us have to pay for their criminal negligence?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You'd get hit by a car....as a matter of fact, literally you did in this thread!

How about crossing a train track unlawfully?

You'd get the message... might be your last one, but you'd get it!

What if it is a slow-moving freight train?

 

[Vigilante]

How about crossing a train track unlawfully?

You'd get the message... might be your last one, but you'd get it!

What if it is a slow-moving freight train?

What if an asteroid hit you?

 

[g5000]

Talk about GRABBING AT STRAWS when it comes to the Manchurian muslim's regime when it tries to prosecute someone!

Obama’s absolutely dismal record at the Supreme Court continues as the Court just issued a major ruling against the feds and their unconstitutional exercise of power. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0, against Obama just this morning in the case of Bond v. United States. The government tried to use a federal statute against chemical weapons to prosecute a woman who put toxic chemicals on the door handle of a car owned by a woman her husband was having an affair with. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons...

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

The ruling is not against Obama, dumbass. She was charged under the chemical weapons treaty in 2007.

The wheels of justice turn very slowly.

I am very happy about this decision. Bush began an extreme overreach of labeling crimes like this as "terrorism". People who thought the War on Terror™ began and ended against Al Qaeda were very naive.

Law enforcement had a long shopping list of expanded police powers they desired. 9/11 gave them the perfect opportunity to acquire those new powers, and they acquired them through the Patriot Act. They have been exploiting them ever since, such as using an international chemical weapons treaty against a psycho housewife trying to kill her husband's lover with common household chemicals.

But then Bush thought it was okay to imprison US citizens without habaes corpus, too. And the Supreme Court handed his ass to him on that point, as well.

He and the GOP also felt we should all be carrying national identity papers. And they want those papers presented before being allowed to exercise your rights. And he created a Fatherland...er...Homeland Security Department with massive police powers. And he spied on tens of millions of Americans without warrants. Sieg Heil!


Just remember these things if and when there is ever another large scale terrorist attack against us. You can be sure that somewhere in a closet, waiting to be deployed, there is a Patriot Act II: This Time We REALLY Mean Business. Meter maids will be authorized to shoot double parkers as terrorists impeding our nation's navigation. And a lot of howling flag pin wearing totalitarian-minded rubes will be right there throwing their support behind it, just like they did for Bush.

In January 2009, Obama took the despot's torch that was passed to him and ran with it. Then the howling flag pin wearing totalitarian-minded rubes became suddenly interested in our Constitution they'd been wiping their asses with! Aren't they cute?

Now this. "Oh that Obama violating this housewife and shit! That BASTARD!!!!"

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You'd get the message... might be your last one, but you'd get it!

What if it is a slow-moving freight train?

What if an asteroid hit you?

Could that include an asteroid that was contaminated with some type of chemical or chemicals?

 

[Vigilante]

What if it is a slow-moving freight train?

What if an asteroid hit you?

Could that include an asteroid that was contaminated with some type of chemical or chemicals?

If that's what gets your pant's wet!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vigilante & crew thought it was about Obama, not a test case to strike the Federal law. The narrow ruling led to a deep division in "concurring" opinions. And, of course, prosecution began under Bush II, the case has been before the USSC twice. Only reading the headlines, as Vigilante did, leads to misinterpretation.

Vigilante sees what he wants to see, which is what he hopes is reinforcement for his strange world view.

No, Jake the Flake, no diversion from her credentials..... We've seen this "Obuma Diversion" before......

The diversion was yours when we outed your OP.

Now you are saying "don't look behind the curtain."

You are here only for grins and chuckles.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

What if an asteroid hit you?

Could that include an asteroid that was contaminated with some type of chemical or chemicals?

If that's what gets your pant's wet!

I would rather stay naked all day than get any on it.

 

[Dot Com]

Vigilante sees what he wants to see, which is what he hopes is reinforcement for his strange world view.

No, Jake the Flake, no diversion from her credentials..... We've seen this "Obuma Diversion" before......

The diversion was yours when we outed your OP.

Now you are saying "don't look behind the curtain."

You are here only for grins and chuckles.

This thread has been fun/funny Keep up the good work OP

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Jake the Flake, no diversion from her credentials..... We've seen this "Obuma Diversion" before......

The diversion was yours when we outed your OP.

Now you are saying "don't look behind the curtain."

You are here only for grins and chuckles.

This thread has been fun/funny Keep up the good work OP

I always enjoy the entertainment V provides the Board.

 

[peach174]

Conservative Tribune, not a law journal, that is a given!

PS: The USSC refused to rule on Bond's claim the law violated the Tenth Amendment, thus, RWNs LOST.

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

Speaking of wooden heads:

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim?

She is the opposing party, thus, the Court ruled in her favor; the law in question is part of Bush's post 9/11 spree of anti civil rights legislation, but keep on applauding CON.

This had nothing to do with Bush.
It's about the International Chemical Weapons Act of 1997-98. Under the Clinton regime.
The international Chemical Treaty was for international countries not for domestic law issues.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this International Treaty of which she was convicted of was unconstitutional.
This Administration argued that International Treaties could be used against U.S. Citizens.
They tried to expand their power but the Supreme Court said no.

 

[flacaltenn]

'Bout time we cooled the 9.11 rhetoric.. The govt has been misusing these terms ever since
the Patriot Act was passed..

Teens charged after explosion outside Lexington home




Officials said that five teenagers, ages 13 to 15, mixed the chemicals in the bottle and left it at the door of the home as a prank.

"Especially since 9/11, lawmakers got very serious with the way they wrote laws. And if people are making weapons of mass destruction, whether it be full-on bombs or just overpressure devices in soda bottles, it's going to be taken very seriously," said Lexington Police Spokeswoman Sherelle Roberts.

The prank carries serious consequences for the teens; they have been charged with criminal use of a weapon of mass destruction, which is a Class C felony. In Kentucky, that can carry a jail sentence of anywhere from five to ten years.

Is this why we could accuse Saddam of having WMDs???? Because anyone possessing kitchen chemicals is a terrorist organization at 13 or 15 yrs old??

YOU -- have "bomb making materials" in your garage.. I applaud this rare outbreak of reason and clarity from the Supremes...