Carol Anne Bond vs. United States, No. 09–1227, 564 U. S. ____ (June 16, 2011)

Thursday, July 28, 2011

IMPORTANT – SC REINSTATED SOVEREIGNTY

The US Supreme Court overturned a US Court appeals ruling and reinserted state Sovereignty & individual Sovereignty as well!!!Carol Anne Bond vs. United States, No. 09–1227, 564 U. S. ____ (June 16, 2011)

Full document: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf
http://www.truthwinds.com/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=1311698183
——————
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuPo335Wp5Q&feature=player_embedded

Posted by John MacHaffie at 2:42 PM 0 comments

At this point, I plan to do more about it in tomorrow’s video.

Carol Anne Bond vs. United States, No. 09–1227, 564 U. S. ____ (June 16, 2011)

Full documenthttp://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf

Excerpts

 

“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…

 

“The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right…State sovereignty is not just an end in itself:  ‘Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.’” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181 (1992) (quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 759 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting))…

 

“Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power…the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States…

 

“Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See ibid. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake…

 

“The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism.…

 

“An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate…

 

“The public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, enacted in its capacity as sovereign, has been displaced by that of the National Government…

 

“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)…

 

“Bond, like any other defendant, has a personal right not to be convicted under a constitutionally invalid law…See also North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 739 (1969) (Black, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (‘Due process . . . is a guarantee that a man should be tried and convicted only in accordance with valid laws of the land.’)…

 

“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 offense 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.

 

“…a court has no “prudential” license to decline to consider whether the statute under which the defendant has been charged lacks constitutional application to her conduct. And that is so even where the constitutional provision that would render the conviction void is directed at protecting a party not before the Court…(reversal required even if, going forward, Congress would cure the unequal treatment by extending rather than invalidating the criminal proscription).

 

“In short, a law ‘beyond the power of Congress,’ for any reason, is ‘no law at all.’ Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 341 (1928). The validity of Bond’s conviction depends upon whether the Constitution permits Congress to enact (18 USC) §229. Her claim that it does not must be considered and decided on the merits.”

 

I wonder if these principles will be revived as well?

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.  One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.  In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court…

     “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.  An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law.  The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.”  

Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

“An unconstitutional act is not law.  It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office.  It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” 

 

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”  

 

16 American Jurisprudence 2d, Sec. 256

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.  The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.  An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.”

 

July 26, 2011

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s