Bond V. United States ; Monumental Court Case

[Se7eN]

Hi everyone I just joined this forum and hope to become more of a regular around here and hopefully I can help contribute. I have done a very extensive amount of research on the law both federal and state but I am not a lawyer. People on here will soon learn I am a very strong advocate for freedom and stand to defend our constitution and our rights at all costs. Anyway in doing some research lately I ran across a recent supreme court case that just concluded on June 16, 2011.

 

"JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States. The indicted defendant, petitioner here, sought to ar­gue the invalidity of the statute. She relied on the Tenth Amendment, and, by extension, on the premise that Congress exceeded its powers by enacting it in contravention of basic federalism principles. The statute, 18 U. S. C. §229, was enacted to comply with a treaty; but petitioner contends that, at least in the present instance, the treaty cannot be the source of congressional power to regulate or prohibit her conduct. The Court of Appeals held that because a State was not a party to the federal criminal proceeding, petitioner had no standing to challenge the statute as an infringement upon the powers reserved to the States. Having concluded that petitioner does have standing to challenge the federal statute on these grounds, this Court now reverses that determination."

 

"here is no basis to support the Government’s proposed distinction between different federalism arguments for purposes of prudential standing rules. The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined. While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment, both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, see New York, 505 U. S., at 155–159, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 564 (1995)."

 

"In this case, Bond argues that the statute under which she was charged, 18 U. S. C. §229, exceeds Congress’ enumerated powers and violates the Tenth Amendment. Other defendants might assert that a law exceeds Congress’ power because it violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, or the Establishment Clause, or the Due Process Clause. Whatever the claim, success on the merits would require reversal of the conviction. “An offence created by an unconstitutional law,” the Court has held, “is not a crime.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 376 (1880). “A conviction under such a law is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.” Id., at 376–377. If a law is invalid as applied to the criminal defendant’s conduct, the defendant is entitled to go free."

 

 

Bond v. United States PDF

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

 

Now even though this course obviously doesn't directly relate to medical marijuana the implications of this are huge for battling the feds and trying to uphold state sovereignty over federal law.

[Timmahh]

yes it is. great find and welcome to 3MA!

[coxie0527]

Great work. A logical, reasonable voice is needed here. Welcome.

[greenbuddha]

Se7eN,

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Your information points out very well the issue of letting 'states' make the determination as to the 'legality' of MMJ and cannabis.

 

The 'states' should have the sole right to determine the MMJ / cannabis issue, NOT the Federal governemnt.

 

Thanks again.

 

 

[1337Gr33n]

Thanks for the post, and welcome to the 3MA!

[petoskeystoned]

Great Job ! Keep in touch and welcome !

[mmurphy169]

I'm not a lawyer yet, I'm still at MSU Law, but I have picked up a few things so far. I don't want to rain on the parade here, but all the Supremes did was acknowledge that Bond had standing to challenge, which the Appeals court said she didn't.

 

"There is no basis in precedent or principle to deny petitioner's standing to raise her claims. The ultimate issue of the statute's validity turns in part on whether the law can be deemed “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the President's Article II, § 2 Treaty Power, see U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 18. This Court expresses no view on the merits of that argument. It can be addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." (131 S.Ct. 2355, 2367)

 

We still do not know if it will ultimately be decided that the Federal intrusion into local affairs in this case (possession and use of a chemical weapon...and two counts of mail theft) is constitutional. And since we already have Supreme Court cases arising from suits in Cali (Gonzales v. Raich sticks out in my mind) where the Supremes have said the Federal Government can intrude on local cultivation and possession of medical cannabis, this case doesn't seem to help much.