Bond v. U.S.
In the years of 2013 through 2014, the Bond v. U.S. case, came before the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the tenth amendment (Oyez). The tenth amendment states that, “The powers not given to the U.S. by the Constitution or prohibited by it to states are reserved to the states, or more subsequently, the people (Hart). The question and hand for the Supreme Court was, “Does Congress have the authority to enact a law that enforces a treat but goes beyond the scope of the treaty and intrudes on traditional state privileges?” This essay will explore events that occurred leading to the court case, the court’s decision, and the impact of the decision (Oyez).
Carol Anne Bond, a worker for the chemical manufacturer Rohm and Haas,
…show more content…
learned that her husband was having an affair with her friend, Myrlinda Haynes. In fact, she was pregnant and Bond’s husband was the father. Of course, Bond was furious, she used her relations with the chemical company and purchased and stole highly toxic chemicals that she applied to Haynes’ doorknobs, car door handles, and mailbox. Haynes managed to get away with a minor burn and immediately contacted a federal investigator, Bond was identified as the perpetrator. She was charged with several violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Once in the district court, Bond argued that Congress didn’t have the authority to enforce the Act because it subverted states’ rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment, the district court denied the motion at first and was sent to six years in prison. She renewed her challenge to the Act in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which held that Bond didn’t have standing to appeal. The case was returned back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where they finally made their decision (Oyez). The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided in a 6-3 majority that the Act was within Congress’ power to enact and enforce.The court held that federal law typically doesn’t intrude on the ability of states to regulate local matters, and the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act in not an exception to that general rule. Congress does hold the right to create legislation to enforce treaties, but it must also respect the tradition division of sovereign responsibility between the federal government and the states, but then Congress must also be rational, it was brought up that Congress’ intent for the tenth amendment’s power to be so expansive and broad, so it must be read more narrowly. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that, in wording Bond’s actions were covered, and the majority opinion’ interpretation of the statute made it so broad as to be unintelligible, but the statute was unconstitutional because it infringed on the rights of the state's, two other judges concurred to this idea (Oyez).
This case really created a lasting impact on how individuals would sue from that point onward. Because the the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Bond had a standing to sue, individuals are now eligible to sue under the tenth Amendment as well. Before this case, the tenth Amendment only came into play when the states claimed that the federal government usurped their authority (Damien). It is clearly stated in the tenth amendment that the rule does not only apply to the states, but more specifically the people. Only then had the public realised
this. In conclusion, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced the with the question, “Does Congress have the authority to enact a law that enforces a treat but goes beyond the scope of the treaty and intrudes on traditional state privileges?”, they agreed that they do have the power to act on this specific situation. This impact the way that people could sue from that point on, because the tenth Amendment was now a potential reason to sue.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and FBI’s and the like to “do their homework” before declaring someone guilty of a crime. Although this case was very influential on the way police forces carry out their duties, I think the case was mostly important in that it forced all courts in the U.S. to have a greater recognition of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the story of the victim involved in this case.
The case came to the Supreme Court as the infamous Federal versus State battle for power. Once again the question plagued Marshall whether to support Federalism, or keep States’ rights alive.
An appeal was filed because Schenck and his counsel believed that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional due to its violation of the First Amendment. The United States asserted that Schenck violated the act by conspiring “to cause insubordination … in the military and naval forces of the United States.” Schenck also believed that the military draft was a slave-like institution and that it infringed upon the 14th amendment.
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
The case involved several questions the Supreme Court had to answer. The first question was whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission. The Court decided that he did have the right because the appointment was issued while Adams was still in office and took effect as soon as it was signed. The next question was to determine if the law gave Marbury remedy. The Court found that the law did provide remedy for Marbury. Adams signed the appointment and Marshall sealed it thereby giving Marbury legal right to the office he was appointed to. Therefore, denying delivery of the appointment to him was a violation of his rights and the law provides him remedy. The third question was to determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review acts o...
According to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though last in the Bill of Rights, it is one of the most powerful and ever changing in interpretation over the course of America’s history. Some historical events that altered its meaning include the Civil War, The Civil Right’s Movement, and even modern event’s like the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In this paper I will discuss how the Tenth amendment has a large effect in both America’s history, but also how it is now portrayed America’s present.
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
... was instrumental to recognition of the constitutional right to privacy and the interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. This case shows that the Constitution is a living document that can be maneuvered to accommodate for the adaption of American peoples. While it is a stationary and unchanging document, unique interpretations can be gleamed.
This conclusion demonstrates how federal law transcends intrastate law, at least through this case. Raich and Monson did not succeed in their plight to limit the federal law, but their attempt has become an example for others to look back upon when debating the conflict between federal law and state law. In this way, Raich and Monson represent the role of the People by taking action to change government and leaving enough impact for consideration in future government
One of the most common controversies addressed by the court is should the Bill of Rights apply to state governments. In 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights only applies to the national government and does not include protections against state governments. Barron sought redress under the just compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice John Marshall said the United States Constitution cannot be applied to state laws. This ruling was a major boost for states’ rights. (pg. A107-111) The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868 states that anyone born or naturalized in the United States are considered citizens. With the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court begin to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. States were no longer allowed to pass laws that violated the civil liberties of United States as laid out in the Bill of Rights. (pg. 81)
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
This thriving constitutional controversy has been in the discussions by a majority of the Supreme Court decisions. Although the United State...