Supreme Court: United States v Bond aka Lib Utopia or Totalitarian Hell

[jpk1md]

While it has been mentioned in passing in at least one other thread United States v Bond is a case that everyone should be watching as it has the potential to result in the use of "Treaties" to pass legislation that will give the Fed Gov effectively unlimited power that will trump constitutionally guaranteed rights as well as blow away any constitutional limitations that may still exist on the limitations of what the fed gov may do.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bond-v-united-states/

SC, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Cato, GOA and others have filed in support of the defendent AGAINST the argument allowing further usurpation of gooberment powers.

Wonder where the NRA is?

Might be time for a lot of folks to call NRA-ILA on this one........

Slate predictably makes a rediculous argument that Congress has the power to pass any laws "Necessary and Proper" to enforce the powers of another branch of gooberment.......yea......they really do try to make that argument contrary to what the final section of Article I Section 8 actually says.....

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...lous_libertarian_argument_in_the_supreme.html

Anyway.....this case is MUCH more important to your rights and freedoms and will have far more detrimental effects than Heller/McDonald should SCOTUS come down on the wrong side of this issue..........might be worth paying attention to.

 

[rob]

Here is a related editorial from the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/4/editorial-bypassing-the-constitution/

It looks like the goal is a stealth attack on the 2nd ammendment.

This case may be more significant to the future of this country than any other.

Rob

 

[fightinbluhen51]

Welp...one thing is for sure...pretty, pale, blue helmets are easy to spot.


ETA: And only an idiot propagandist from Slate would make the argument that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention didn't "agree on terms, and hurried the process of writing the document."

SMFH!

 

[Sev89]

What are the chances the court rules in .govs favor?

 

[fightinbluhen51]

What are the chances the court rules in .govs favor?

Vegas would not put it on it's big board...and I'm quite certain the only odds the back street bookie would give you would be if he knew you were willing to actually bet a mortgage payment.

 

[foxmanb]

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves right now.

 

[jpk1md]

Oral arguments before Supreme Court were yesterday

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/363151/oral-argument-bond-v-united-states-ed-whelan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...46cdf8-4276-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html

George Will's column was pretty good

 

[AssMan]

Link to the other thread on this topic. Mods please combine.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=137051

 

[pcfixer]

Here is a related editorial from the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/4/editorial-bypassing-the-constitution/

It looks like the goal is a stealth attack on the 2nd ammendment.

This case may be more significant to the future of this country than any other.

Rob

The Department of Justice has taken the extraordinary position that signing a treaty expands the power of the government beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

The Founders would be appalled. It has been settled law since the middle of the previous century, when the Supreme Court ruled that the treaty clause doesn’t allow Congress to do whatever it pleases. “There is nothing in this language,” Justice Hugo Black wrote, “which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.” President Obama’s Justice Department wants to dispense with this precedent.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/4/editorial-bypassing-the-constitution/#ixzz2jyGph1Qo
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Pretty clear that this administration wants to use the UN Small Arms treaty to limit the use of guns, ammunition etc. Most likely a means to register and therefore confiscate.

We will not obey unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law. We won’t “just follow orders.” Our motto: “Not on Our Watch!” or to put it even more succinctly, in the words of 101st Airborne Commander General Anthony McAuliffe at the Battle of the Bulge, “NUTS!”

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/
​

 

[1obxnut]

A treaty is an agreement/contract between nations as the constitution was a treaty among the states. US citizens (civilian) are bound by constitutional law not treaties.

USSC - Reid v. Covert No. 701 (1955) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html

In it..."At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely [p6] a creature of the Constitution. [n3] Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."

If the person is not a member of the armed forces (abroad or within the US) they have right to trial buy jury not USMJ (case of treaties).

Im I understanding this right or do I need to put down the bottle? (forgive me, I'm still bummed about VA's election)

 

[EL1227]

Here is a related editorial from the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/4/editorial-bypassing-the-constitution/

It looks like the goal is a stealth attack on the 2nd ammendment.

This case may be more significant to the future of this country than any other.

Rob

Not just a stealth attack on 2A, but almost any of the enumerated powers in the constitution along with potentially adding extra-constitutional ones. Eroding states rights will eventually turn us into the new USSR IMHO ...

TownHall.com weighs in -
Bond Allows Federal Government to Use Treaties to Trump States Rights

However, considering the federal laws recent narrowly avoided treaties would have implemented, including a law which would have outlawed homeschooling and impact Americans’ Second Amendment rights, it would be difficult to overstate the importance of such a ruling.

University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner doubts that the United States would enter into those kinds of treaties, and then doubts whether federal agencies would use abuse the legislative powers implementing the treaties would provide.

How well-placed is that trust? Posner himself uses the examples of treaties which would shred state laws on the death penalty and home schooling if implemented. How interesting that earlier this year Senate Democrats attempted to resurrect a narrowly defeated UN treaty which would, if implemented, effectively outlaw homeschooling at the federal level.

And homeschooling is small potatoes compared to the arms treaty that SecState Kerry signed, but has not yet been ratified by the Senate..

AmmoLand.com -

Sen. Jeff Moran: “What is essential to understand is that the ATT can be changed through an ongoing process, and will likely be amended to incorporate the U.N.’s International Small Arms Control Standards. The result is that, within ten years , the ATT will be transformed from its ‘artfully ambiguous’ current state to something more clearly contrary to U.S. national interests, in addition to the interests of trade and pro-gun American civil society.”

We've got to sign the treaty before we can know what's in it ... sound familiar ? OBTW ... Kerry also just negotiated and signed a nuclear arms pact with Iran.

John F'n Kerry ... who once served in Vietnam.

 

[pcfixer]

I am a retired US Army veteran. I have taken the Oath as an enlisted soldier and a Warrant Officer. I would say that all "American's" follow that Oath and keep the faith by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Unites States Flag. It is meant to be a code of honor, respect for one's country. Also means we have a moral and ethical code to obey "lawful" orders that are in keeping with the United States Constitution and to the Declaration of Independence.

So, if and when unconstitutional therefore Illegal orders are put into effect, I believe we are bound by moral law not to obey.

 

[pcfixer]

..

 

[rmdashrf]

I am a retired US Army veteran. I have taken the Oath as an enlisted soldier and a Warrant Officer. I would say that all "American's" follow that Oath and keep the faith by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Unites States Flag. It is meant to be a code of honor, respect for one's country. Also means we have a moral and ethical code to obey "lawful" orders that are in keeping with the United States Constitution and to the Declaration of Independence.

So, if and when unconstitutional therefore Illegal orders are put into effect, I believe we are bound by moral law not to obey.

Qft.



It is the responsibility of all American citizens to preserve the rights and liberties our founding fathers founded this country on and so enumerated in our nations most sacred documents. This is the only way freedom and liberty in a republic can survive and it is our duty to do so for our future generations sake.

It is a shame, however, that very few citizens take this responsibility seriously or even care about it.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

 

[pcfixer]

This is not a "2A threat". This is an argument as to whether the Fed .gov can assume an authority that is not enumerated in the Constitution.

Did not indicate this case is about 2 A. Just keeping the government within constitutional authority.

I STRONGLY doubt there would be any liberal push toward allowing treaties to trump the Constitution

Maybe just me, but I think your are niave in this regard. Don't take this personally.


please read the OP website.
http://townhall.com/columnists/cath...urce=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

There is simply no reason to trust Congress to respect state law when the body regularly narrowly rejects UN treaties whose implementation would trump state law on non-federal matters. The US should absolutely be required to amend or refuse to implement treaties whose implementation would violate federalism

I have no faith in USSC, congress nor administration doing what is right, therefore my reasoning. They all have proven NOT to have moral courage, NO ethical code of honor.

 

[EL1227]

I don't know if people are reading this properly.

This is not a "2A threat". This is an argument as to whether the Fed .gov can assume an authority that is not enumerated in the Constitution. It is NOT about whether the Federal government can infringe on an individual right (see Heller) EXPLICITLY enumerated in the Constitution itself. Even if this gets decided in the Fed .gov's favor, it doesn't grant Congress any more power to pass anti-2A laws.

Where this IS interesting and relevant, however, is the issues that have been cited...things like death-penalty, education, marriage and family matters, etc.

I think that's what I was eluding to above ...
http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=2863120&postcount=11
But ... 2A could be affected if the open-ended ATT gets amended as Moran notes.

 

[Al Norris]

I think at least some of you don't understand what this case is actually about.

The questions that the SCOTUS has agreed to answer are 2. The first question is actually much broader in its implications. The second question subverts Reid v. Covert in its entirety and relies upon Missouri v. Holland, a case that granted the Congress authority above the confines of its enumerated powers, so long as that power was made pursuant to a valid treaty. All briefs may be read, here: 12-158

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?

On some other boards, those of us that see the implications of this case, are being beaten down by those that hold Reid v. Covert to be the final say, in matters of Treaties. It is not, and this case is the proof.

Reid v. Covert
State of Missouri v. Holland

 

[Brooklyn]

I don't either. But a broad treaty authority is bad news for everyone. I'm not expecting them to do what's right...I'm expecting them to do what most benefits/least hurts their own ideologies. You can't trust a dog not to eat your steak when you're not looking, but you can trust a dog to be a dog.

Allowing the Federal government to be able to pass ANY law they please just by finding a country to create a treaty with...creates a real threat for both Liberals and Conservatives, both Progressives and Libertarians.

Since there is no agenda NOT threatened by a "treaty override" of the Constitution, the best thing for the SC to do is "make the right decision".

We'll see.

Second fastest way to constitutional convention. The first being the collopse of the $$.

Stand ready.. sooner or later the union must be threatened with dissolution just to preserve the compact.

I am ready to roll the dice now.. before public education gets another generation or two to work it'd corruption...