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.
This could be big, this could be nothing. I’m taking a wait and see attitude.
“The Court unanimously held…”
Am I reading this right? The entire SCOTUS, including the Leftists Obama appointed, agreed on this?
Will wonders never cease? =^[.]^=
It could be useful to leftists, too. After all, why should universal standing be limited to 10th Amendment cases?
No- at the time this case was argued it was still the Leftists Clinton appointed (Ginsberg and Breyer), plus Stevens. Sotomayor and Kagan weren’t aboard yet.
By all means, cite it in your brief(s), but did the Government changing its position on standing factor in the Court’s decision?
This affirms that courts are higher on the caste system than legislatures..
just sayin.. affirmation of rank..
The 10th just got inverted.
I read the 10th as the ability of State’s Legislatures to bring Original Jurisdiction motions directly to the Supreme Court..
In the end, the supremes are still just lowly civil servants..
Bureaucrats are ALWAYS the enemy of a Free People.
The 10th Amendment was ignored and frowned upon by lawyers and scholars. Its Alive!
It just means that you cannot have your case thrown out so readily just because you have no “special standing”.
One of the things that kept Obama from having his Birth Certificate revealed in ’08, was the the court ruled that Mr. Berg had no “special standing”. I don’t think this ruling would change that, but it helps explain what this means.
Individuals can now sue against ObamaCare based on federal overreach via the mandate. They may be able to sue to stop the NLRB overreach against Boeing. They may be able to stop the EPA harassment against TX. The list goes on.
A unanimous decision? Maybe the prior commenter is right. Maybe it is a way for the Courts to dominate the legislature, but I do not think so. I think it only means that your case for freedom cannot be so readily thrown out.
WOOTAGE!
Marc….This is going to be an interest ruling to follow on more than one front. Imagine the numbers of instances in which States have yeilded to federal prosecution, convictions and higher sentencing terms under laws that may very well impinge the states on the very same argument of standing….while leaving ["The ultimate issue of the statute’s validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the President’s Article II, §2 Treaty Power...to the Court of Appeals on remand.'] Seems likely there could be a flood of frivolous cases filed.
Not disturbing the merits of Bonds challenge to the statute’s validity is an important consideration….as is the ‘injury’ element.
I’m not as certain as some, that there is any “green light’ effect to this ruling…at least not in the ‘assumed’ context inferred.
As for ["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."] I believe this ruling and the opinions of the lower appellate court will give the many States, the more weighted standing.
(http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/082677p.pdf)
I would be interested in seeing Ms. Feldmans opinion.
If each State isn’t unique, what’s the point of ‘United States’?
The Supremes Serve the United States
States.. Not miniscule minority agitators..
Repeal the 17th ASAP.. and put forth the Original 13th Amendment..
If I remember the wording correctly, the amendment ends with “…reserved for the states and the people.” That would pretty clearly mean that not just the states individually should be able to challenge a law on 10th amendment grounds. Otherwise, why put “…and the people.” in the amendment. The Constitutional Conventioneers and the people who wrote the Bill of Rights were all adults, and they meant what they wrote and wrote what they meant. Clearly, they meant for the ruling to be this way. My feeling is that they also meant for the Federal Government to be a lot smaller than it is, and try to do (and screw up) a lot less…but that’s just me.
9-0, too. I find it interesting that even Ginsberg acknowledges that there are limitations on Congressional power, even if she can’t bring herself to use the word “enumerated.”
for 100 years, gradually, inexorably, the statist strategy has been to use the federal government to assault the liberty of the states, and or the people, directly.
finally, with the 10th rejuvinated, and if we can bring the 9th back as well, we can give battle in the courts against the statists.
What this case was about was a woman whose husband cheated on her. This woman did something with some common poisonous chemical to harm either the husband or the tart.
The Federal Govt came in and charged her under Fed criminal law that was made in response to a UN Treaty on Bioweapons.
The woman sued saying it was the State’s decision to prosecute her on her normal state charges and that it was an abuse of Fed Govt to do so.
She also claimed that to make such legislation regarding the use of chemicals against other persons is a violation of Article I Section 8.
That Congress is not authorized to engage in such law-making simply because a Treaty demanded they do so.
This ruling sends her complaints back to the Appeals Court and tells them that they must rule on her objections.