.gif)
From The Wall Street Journal and ADF:
POLITICSFEBRUARY 23, 2011.Justices Weigh 10th Amendment .Article Comments more in Politics & Policy ».EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
.Twitter
Digg
+ More
close Yahoo! BuzzMySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookLinkedInFarkViadeoOrkut Text By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court seemed ready Tuesday to hand criminal defendants a new weapon against federal prosecutors, allowing them to contend they were charged under laws that usurp authority the Constitution reserves for state governments.
More on the Court
Read more about the Supreme Court, including upcoming cases and details on the justices.
.But it was unclear during Tuesday's oral arguments whether the justices were inclined toward a narrow ruling affecting only a small number of criminal prosecutions, as the Obama administration urged, or, as some conservatives hope, would make a broader statement setting out limits on federal power.
At issue is the 10th Amendment, which provides that states or "the people" retain powers the Constitution neither delegates to the federal government nor prohibits state governments from exercising. Although the Supreme Court long ago described the 10th Amendment as a "truism," tea-party activists, like conservatives before them, have cited the provision to buttress arguments against federal authority.
Tuesday's case emerged not from contemporary ideological conflict but a lurid domestic affair involving two Barbadian immigrants in suburban Bucks County, Pa. There, Carol Anne Bond, 40 years old, suffered what her attorneys called an "emotional breakdown" after learning that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was carrying a child fathered by her husband, Clifford Bond.
Ms. Bond began threatening Ms. Haynes in letters and phone calls, and in 2005 was convicted in state court of harassment. Ms. Bond then switched tactics, placing toxic chemicals pilfered from her workplace and purchased over the Internet on Ms. Haynes's mailbox and other places she would likely touch, court papers say. Ms. Haynes complained to local police, who did little, and to her letter carrier, who notified postal inspectors.
Surveillance cameras captured Ms. Bond stealing an envelope from Ms. Haynes's mailbox and stuffing potassium dichromate in her car's muffler. That led to federal charges of stealing mail—and violating criminal statutes implementing the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which the U.S. ratified in 1997. Ms. Bond, who in 2007 was sentenced to six years imprisonment, appealed on grounds that Congress lacked authority to punish her for the chemical assaults.
In Philadelphia, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ms. Bond the right to raise that claim, ruling that only state officials had legal standing to assert a 10th Amendment violation of their authority. When Ms. Bond appealed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department abandoned the Third Circuit's decision, conceding individual defendants were entitled to argue that they were charged under laws exceeding congressional power.
But the government's attorney, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, said Tuesday that right should not be extended to give individuals a broad warrant to challenge federal laws for infringing "state sovereignty."
That triggered a response from Justice Anthony Kennedy. "The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty," he said. "If that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can't it be raised?"
Mr. Dreeben suggested that the government's position would allow the vast majority of criminal defendants to raise constitutional claims that Congress exceeded its specified powers.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that there was little practical difference in the different legal theories presented. "The basic principles do kind of merge together," he said.
Ms. Bond's attorney, Paul Clement, asked for a broad ruling, saying there was no reason to "carve out a special rule" for claims that Washington had "commandeered" state officials. Trial courts should be able to evaluate whether such claims were relevant to specific cases, he said.
But in response to a question from Justice Elena Kagan, Mr. Clement said that the 10th Amendment did not impose additional restrictions on Congress beyond the limits of its enumerated powers.
With neither Ms. Bond nor the Justice Department defending the Third Circuit opinion, the justices appointed an independent lawyer, University of Kansas law professor Stephen McAllister, to argue for affirming the appellate court.
Mr. McAllister said the Third Circuit decision made sense because an individual like Ms. Bond may not be the best party to assert the state's interests.
"In the 10th Amendment context, those claims belong to the states. They don't create individual rights. And in fact, there's good reason to think the states do get involved when they perceive actual 10th Amendment violations," Mr. McAllister said. A decision is expected before July.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
POLITICSFEBRUARY 23, 2011.Justices Weigh 10th Amendment .Article Comments more in Politics & Policy ».EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
Digg
+ More
close Yahoo! BuzzMySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookLinkedInFarkViadeoOrkut Text By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court seemed ready Tuesday to hand criminal defendants a new weapon against federal prosecutors, allowing them to contend they were charged under laws that usurp authority the Constitution reserves for state governments.
More on the Court
Read more about the Supreme Court, including upcoming cases and details on the justices.
.But it was unclear during Tuesday's oral arguments whether the justices were inclined toward a narrow ruling affecting only a small number of criminal prosecutions, as the Obama administration urged, or, as some conservatives hope, would make a broader statement setting out limits on federal power.
At issue is the 10th Amendment, which provides that states or "the people" retain powers the Constitution neither delegates to the federal government nor prohibits state governments from exercising. Although the Supreme Court long ago described the 10th Amendment as a "truism," tea-party activists, like conservatives before them, have cited the provision to buttress arguments against federal authority.
Tuesday's case emerged not from contemporary ideological conflict but a lurid domestic affair involving two Barbadian immigrants in suburban Bucks County, Pa. There, Carol Anne Bond, 40 years old, suffered what her attorneys called an "emotional breakdown" after learning that her best friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was carrying a child fathered by her husband, Clifford Bond.
Ms. Bond began threatening Ms. Haynes in letters and phone calls, and in 2005 was convicted in state court of harassment. Ms. Bond then switched tactics, placing toxic chemicals pilfered from her workplace and purchased over the Internet on Ms. Haynes's mailbox and other places she would likely touch, court papers say. Ms. Haynes complained to local police, who did little, and to her letter carrier, who notified postal inspectors.
Surveillance cameras captured Ms. Bond stealing an envelope from Ms. Haynes's mailbox and stuffing potassium dichromate in her car's muffler. That led to federal charges of stealing mail—and violating criminal statutes implementing the international Chemical Weapons Convention, which the U.S. ratified in 1997. Ms. Bond, who in 2007 was sentenced to six years imprisonment, appealed on grounds that Congress lacked authority to punish her for the chemical assaults.
In Philadelphia, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ms. Bond the right to raise that claim, ruling that only state officials had legal standing to assert a 10th Amendment violation of their authority. When Ms. Bond appealed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department abandoned the Third Circuit's decision, conceding individual defendants were entitled to argue that they were charged under laws exceeding congressional power.
But the government's attorney, Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, said Tuesday that right should not be extended to give individuals a broad warrant to challenge federal laws for infringing "state sovereignty."
That triggered a response from Justice Anthony Kennedy. "The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty," he said. "If that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can't it be raised?"
Mr. Dreeben suggested that the government's position would allow the vast majority of criminal defendants to raise constitutional claims that Congress exceeded its specified powers.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that there was little practical difference in the different legal theories presented. "The basic principles do kind of merge together," he said.
Ms. Bond's attorney, Paul Clement, asked for a broad ruling, saying there was no reason to "carve out a special rule" for claims that Washington had "commandeered" state officials. Trial courts should be able to evaluate whether such claims were relevant to specific cases, he said.
But in response to a question from Justice Elena Kagan, Mr. Clement said that the 10th Amendment did not impose additional restrictions on Congress beyond the limits of its enumerated powers.
With neither Ms. Bond nor the Justice Department defending the Third Circuit opinion, the justices appointed an independent lawyer, University of Kansas law professor Stephen McAllister, to argue for affirming the appellate court.
Mr. McAllister said the Third Circuit decision made sense because an individual like Ms. Bond may not be the best party to assert the state's interests.
"In the 10th Amendment context, those claims belong to the states. They don't create individual rights. And in fact, there's good reason to think the states do get involved when they perceive actual 10th Amendment violations," Mr. McAllister said. A decision is expected before July.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment