The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case that touched on the most pressing constitutional question of the day: just how much power does Congress have to regulate matters ordinarily left up to the states? The fate of President Obama’s health care law will turn on how that question is answered.
But based on the justices’ comments, the lurid facts of the case and the odd posture in which it reached the court, the eventual decision will probably offer only limited guidance on the health care law’s prospects. ...NYT
It's a 10th amendment case at bottom, the amendment known as the "tea party's favorite." Has Congress exceeded its powers and infringed on the rights of states?
In the end, the plaintiff and the government came to an agreement and the Justice Department conceded it in the Supreme Court. But the court appointed another lawyer to argue "for the position the government has disowned" -- in other words to address the issue of Congress exceeding its powers. In that respect, the 10th amendment and the 1st amendment seem to be at odds.
Supreme Court justices Tuesday seemed inclined to give Carol Anne Bond the chance to challenge the federal law under which she was prosecuted for trying to poison her husband's lover: a chemical weapons ban.
But the court seemed divided about whether to go beyond that question and wade into the knotty issues of federal power that her case raises.
The issue for the justices is whether an individual without the involvement of a state has the right to pursue the claim that the federal government has trespassed in areas reserved for the states - a subject of considerable interest to those who want to challenge the actions of Congress. ...Washington Post
Carol Anne Bond found that her husband had fathered the child of her best friend. Her reaction? A microbiologist, she "promised to make her former friend’s life 'a living hell'," according to the Times. "Ms. Bond spread harmful chemicals on her friend’s car, mailbox and doorknob. The friend suffered only a minor injury."
Such matters are usually handled by the local police and prosecutors. In Ms. Bond’s case, though, federal prosecutors charged her with using unconventional weapons in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, a treaty concerned with terrorists and rogue states.
In other words, the feds went in for overkill. This all took place in 2007, towards the end of the heyday of terrorists on every corner. Rather than declare an infringement of either the first or tenth amendments, the Court might prefer to prescribe a common sense enema for a Department of Justice still suffering from Bush's misuse of the federal government in general.
