• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme court upholds the 9th and 10th amendment

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
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
 

KIX

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
960
Location
, ,
I was talking about the constitutionality of 2A issues.... MacDonald, Heller, etc.

Those cases were split.

Jonathan
 

LQM

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Branford, Connecticut, USA
It does indeed seem so...

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.)
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

LQM

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Branford, Connecticut, USA
Agreed

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.
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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?
 
Top