[Rushtalk] Brief Against Treaties that Create New Laws

Carl Spitzer Winblows at lavabit.com
Tue Jun 4 14:10:52 MDT 2013


-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Consent Chronicle <chronicle at poststatism.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 11:47:10 -0400 (EDT)

                         The Consent Chronicle
This is the official email newsletter of the Zero Aggression Project and
DownsizeDC.org, Inc. You are receiving this message (at
winblows at lavabit.com) because you subscribed, signed one of our
petitions, or wrote Congress using our Educate the Powerful System. 


SPECIAL BULLETIN

We just reported to you on the delivery of a brief to the Supreme Court:
McCutcheon v. FEC. Now here comes another one that DC Downsizers helped
fund: Bond v. United States.

This new brief attacks a 1920 decision, Missouri v. Holland, where a
federal court ruled that Congress can pass legislation to impose treaty
terms on U.S. citizens.

Our new brief is actually in response to Bond’s second appearance before
the Supreme Court. Thus, we’ll call this brief Bond 2. Recall how we got
here...

      * Bond 1 dealt with a case where Carol Ann Bond was prosecuted
        under federal rules dealing with chemical weapons after she
        attempted to poison a female rival.
      * Bond argued that the Tenth Amendment denies any federal power to
        prosecute her. She should have been charged under Pennsylvania’s
        criminal laws.
      * A lower court rejected Bond’s argument, saying that only the
        Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could bring such a Tenth Amendment
        challenge.
      * But the Supreme Court ruled that Bond had standing to challenge
        the constitutionality of the law. They sent her case back
        through the lower courts with instructions to hear her
        challenge.
      * There, the Federal State successfully argued that treaty power
        trumped Bond’s Tenth Amendment rights.

It was in these lower federal courts that the Missouri v. Holland
precedent was used to rule against your Tenth Amendment rights. The
judge’s opinion was chilling...

        “...the arguable consequence of Missouri v. Holland is that
        treaties and associated legislation are simply not subject to
        Tenth Amendment scrutiny, no matter how far into the realm of
        states’ rights the President and Congress may choose to
        venture.”
        

In other words...

        Congress can impose laws based on commitments made to other
        countries in treaties, even if those laws exceed federal powers
        or violate the Bill of Rights.
        

Why bother amending the Constitution? Just sign a treaty!

Bond 2 appeals the claim from the lower courts that your Tenth Amendment
rights can be so easily disposed. So...

We wrote our brief in support of this Bond 2 challenge. Thank you to
everyone who contributed to make this possible. You can read the brief
here.

Here’s what you accomplished...

The Constitution established a tiny number of federal crimes. ALL other
criminal laws were left to the lower states and localities. But today
there are more than 6,000 federal offenses. Many of these were created
because of treaties with other countries using the Holland decision.

 
Thanks for doing all you can do,

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

                 t h e C o n s e n t C h r o n i c l e 
Reply to this message if you need help. We're eager to assist.

Forwarding or reprinting is encouraged so long as you retain the
attribution and action links and do not edit.

The Zero Aggression Project exposes the criminal violence initiated by
The State and promotes the Zero Aggression Principle as the alternative.
DownsizeDC.org, Inc. is dedicated to withdrawing consent from State
criminality. These are non-profit, public education organizations with
operations at: 1931 15th St., Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202*521*1200.
The Consent Chronicle normally publishes four times per week.

More About Us |  | Support Our Work 







More information about the Rushtalk mailing list