Supreme Court: Individuals May Challenge Federal Law for Violating States’ Rights
June 20th, 2011Hmm. I didn’t think that such an apparently desirable decision would come about this late in the game. Am I missing something? This seems too good to be true.
Via: Jurist:
The US Supreme Court Thursday ruled in Bond v. United States that a private individual can challenge whether a federal criminal law passed to implement an international treaty is valid under the Tenth Amendment.
…Bond has standing to challenge whether the federal law interferes with the powers left only to the states. The court said:
to argue that the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert the legal rights and interests of States and States alone. That, however, is not so. … Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines. Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State.
…
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred, joined by Stephen Breyer, arguing that Bond had standing because “Bond, like any other defendant, has a personal right not to be convicted under a constitutionally invalid law.”
Hmm. I didn’t think that such an apparently desirable decision would come about this late in the game.
I’m sure they will figure out a way to cornhole us:
Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias ruling
well, the US Supreme Court is an utterly corrupt institution, so like you, i’m highly suspicious.
i suspect that this decision is intended to enshrine the right of the elite to cherry-pick which federal laws are germane to them, under the sanctified shrine of “ LIBERTY , of course.
c
Amen to all comments above.
What those black robes are hiding, I’d rather not know, but methink that the Supremes also need to put those monkey masks on their heads: see no evil; hear no evil; well, the stuff out of their mouths has already escaped.
Corrupted beyond comprehension. Half of these nim-rods lied during their appointment process (eg. Roberts and Alito) the others, Thomas and Scalia belong in jail for their a) LIES on their disclosure statement and b) hunting with a Vice President while a court case involving the Vice Prez on the docket.
In any case, the decision re Walmart proves to me that money can buy the Supreme court, well at least more than half of it. Not user friendly when you are not a corporation. And this states rights decision, what a flucking joke.
The Supremes just don’t want to be bothered with the flucking Constitutional questions and would rather send them down to more appointed minions who may not give to flying mosquitoes worth of thought to what is happening in this once great nation.
Pitiful.