Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Supreme court upholds the 9th and 10th amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910

    Supreme court upholds the 9th and 10th amendment

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

    It sure seems to me that this ruling puts a lot of Federal laws at risk of being struck down if they don't fall within the confines of being under the authority of the constitution.

    Too early yet, but I would love to know what this means for 2A issues, since it would seem to me that all of the Federal gun control laws should be challenged under this same criteria since the 2A assures that the Federal government does not have the power to regulate arms.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    I haven't finished reading it, but I'm very intrigued.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I haven't finished reading it, but I'm very intrigued.
    I am intrigued as well. I think this another piece in the puzzle to America rediscovering what it is here for.

  4. #4
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    I'm still reading over everything.

    So far, on the 10th amendment issues, it seems like there is a little more than a subtle hint on healthcare and the constitutionality there.

    I wonder if we can get the same vibes for 2A issues. However, as has been the case for at least 40 years, this 5-4 nonsense with 2A issues has got to stop.

    Seems like it should be a 9-0 issue with the Constitution.

    Plenty of reading material though.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post

    Seems like it should be a 9-0 issue with the Constitution.
    The vote was unanimous from what I read, no?

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran RabbiVJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ATL via DTW
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    The vote was unanimous from what I read, no?
    Twas Unanimous...
    -NRA Member, GSSF Member, GeorgiaCarry Member, Glock Certified Armorer, Glock 30SF, STI Elektra, M&P9c, NAA Black Widow .22 WMR
    -“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”—Mahatma Ghandhi

  7. #7
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    I was talking about the constitutionality of 2A issues.... MacDonald, Heller, etc.

    Those cases were split.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    101

    It does indeed seem so...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

    It sure seems to me that this ruling puts a lot of Federal laws at risk of being struck down if they don't fall within the confines of being under the authority of the constitution.

    Too early yet, but I would love to know what this means for 2A issues, since it would seem to me that all of the Federal gun control laws should be challenged under this same criteria since the 2A assures that the Federal government does not have the power to regulate arms.

    It does seem so, but my reading is that the woman was charged with a treaty violation regarding chemical weapons. That is what she was contesting, if I read this right. The Supreme Court was in agreement but only to the issue of whether the federal government had the authority to charge her as well.

    As to 2nd Amd issues, all of the GCA's (I will lump them all together) are Congressional acts and to my knowledge not treaties entered to. A federalism challenge is feasible if one can prove harm.*

    *(I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on tv.)
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

    "Here sir, the people govern." -- Alexander Hamilton (speech in the New York ratifying convention, 17 June 1788) Reference: The Debates of the Several State..., Elliot, vol. 2 (348)

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by LQM View Post
    It does seem so, but my reading is that the woman was charged with a treaty violation regarding chemical weapons. That is what she was contesting, if I read this right. The Supreme Court was in agreement but only to the issue of whether the federal government had the authority to charge her as well.

    As to 2nd Amd issues, all of the GCA's (I will lump them all together) are Congressional acts and to my knowledge not treaties entered to. A federalism challenge is feasible if one can prove harm.*

    *(I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on tv.)
    She was NOT charged with a treaty violation. She was charged with violation of a federal law enacted by Congress as a result of a Treaty for an act while reprehensible (my word) that was a form of continued harrassment, assault, battery, and stalking---- all because he husband impregnated her close friend! Seems like she would have been better off ending her relationship with both of them!

    But I do like the Courts determination, she has raised a claim that needs to be explored and addressed! And in my opinion it was a local/state matter and should stay a local/state matter, NOT A FEDERAL CASE!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    101

    Agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    She was NOT charged with a treaty violation. She was charged with violation of a federal law enacted by Congress as a result of a Treaty for an act while reprehensible (my word) that was a form of continued harrassment, assault, battery, and stalking---- all because he husband impregnated her close friend! Seems like she would have been better off ending her relationship with both of them!

    But I do like the Courts determination, she has raised a claim that needs to be explored and addressed! And in my opinion it was a local/state matter and should stay a local/state matter, NOT A FEDERAL CASE!
    Perhaps the word "charged" was not the right word to use, but I think we agree, and the Courts did as well, that she does have standing to challenge the federal penalty and subsequent incarceration.

    I, like you, believe that it probably should have been a local matter. This could be a case of the federalization of criminal laws and how it affects federalism as a whole, and how state prosecutors take advantage of federal laws to get the maximum for cases they try.

    I'll take the liberty of attaching a file for all to read regarding the issue of over-federalization of crime. Again, all of this is only my opinion.
    “The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

    "Here sir, the people govern." -- Alexander Hamilton (speech in the New York ratifying convention, 17 June 1788) Reference: The Debates of the Several State..., Elliot, vol. 2 (348)

    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by LQM View Post
    she does have standing to challenge the federal penalty and subsequent incarceration.
    And this is the only take away that is important that I see.

    The courts have affirmed that an individual has cause and standing to challenge a Federal law based on the constitutionality of the law. Does this help me in my Wallingford case? No. Does this help Goldberg in his case? No. The Doutel case? No. But it does set a nice framework when, for instance, someone is arrested for carrying in a federal 'firearms free' zone should they wish to challenge the constitutionality of the law they are charged with.

    Or say, when someone is arrested for possessing an NFA controlled weapon and they challenge the NFA altogether.

    It doesn't change anything with regards to those laws being constitutional or not, but it does lower the barrier for someone to challenge the law. Also, it affirms cause and standing for an individual to argue that a law is in violation of state sovereignty, which may not be as useful (I am not sure), but it is pretty telling of how things are expected to go.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Bond is a narrow decision, and Kennedy makes that point clearly. Hard to say how liberally standing will be granted for the 10A going forward for an individual. We can hope.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    That was an important case.

    Treaties can't create power for the Feds.

    Anyone can challenge constitutionality.

    A law made that is outside the power of congress is no law.

    How did I end up agreeing with Ginsberg?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •