• November 2, 2013

Supreme Court has a strange case before it






The United States Supreme Court has chosen to hear a case that the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has twice decided in a way that confuses most people. In Bond v. United States, this has become the second time it has made it to the Supreme Court and this time they seem they will be finally putting to rest the issue of treaties being used as laws. The woman who is at the center of this is a criminal and there are plenty of laws to convict her for her use of poison, but to also bring in a law that is dealing with a treaty against chemical weapons is either overkill, if you are just middle of the road, or a complete abuse of power, if you believe in the foundations of this nation.


Bond v. United States
The questions that the lawyers are trying to get answered by the Supreme Court are these:
Do the Constitution’s structural limits on federal
authority impose any constraints on the scope of
Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement
a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the
federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope
of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state
prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy
the government’s treaty obligations?
Can the provisions of the Chemical Weapons
Convention Implementation Act, codified at 18 U.S.C.
§ 229, be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning
cases, which have been adequately handled by state
and local authorities since the Framing, in order to
avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving
the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s
decision in Missouri v. Holland?
These questions will impact the everyday American in ways they are charged in normal criminal cases and could even void some laws, as they violate the Tenth Amendment. This is one of those cases that the Supreme Court could curtail some of the laws addressed by Congress.


Missouri v. Holland
The reason that this became an issue is a ruling in 1920, dealing with a treaty over migrating birds. Here is what the Supreme Court ruled:
As most of the laws of the United States are carried out within the States and as many of them deal with matters which in the silence of such laws the State might regulate, such general grounds are not enough to support Missouri’s claim. Valid treaties of course “are as binding within the territorial limits of the States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.” Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678, 683. [1] No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power. We do not have to invoke the later developments of constitutional law for this proposition; it was recognized as early as Hopkirk v. Bell, 3 Cranch, 454, with regard to statutes [*435] of limitation, and even earlier, as to confiscation, in Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. It was assumed by Chief Justice Marshall with regard to the escheat of land to the State in Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259, 275. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258. Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U. S. 333, 340. So as to a limited jurisdiction of foreign consuls within a State. Wildenhus’s Case, 120 U. S. 1. See Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U. S. 453. Further illustration seems unnecessary, and it only remains to consider the application of established rules to the present case.


It will be a tough case for the Supreme Court to decide, as it will deal with changing an interpretation that has become a standard, whether correct or not.






About Paul Shannon

Paul is a Marine that served in the mid '90s. He has been active in both the Republican Party and Christian Coalition. He started doing journalism after he realized that the issues that were being covered were being mostly used as propaganda pieces and has written on Examiner, Yahoo Voices and a few other sites. He writes from the perspective that the Constitution is the best practice. View all posts by Paul Shannon

http://misguidedchildren.com/justice/2013/11/supreme-court-has-a-strange-case-before-it/5935