“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.”
These are the words of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. The reason that Bond vs United States was before the Supreme Court was to decide whether the Federal government had the right to indict Carol Bond for a violation of the Federal statue called “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction”. As Bond’s attorney Paul Clement stated, “If Chemical Ali is in your district, this is your statute.” Clement’s claim was that Bond should have been charged with an ordinary state felony that would have carried a shorter sentence than the six years that Bond received. The other constitutional question was whether Bond has standing to challenge the government on a 10th Amendment question; or does the amendment only delineate federal vs state powers.
The visitors in the peanut gallery sat on long, high backed wooden benches that resembled church pews. Stone faced security guards with suits and earpieces who looked like Secret Service agents, wandered throughout the crowd of 250 and made me wary of taking anything out of my pockets. Everyone paid very close attention. After all, how many opportunities do most of us have to watch a Supreme Court case? But another reason was that all cell phones and PDAs had to be left outside. No electronic media in this courtroom; strictly old school.
After watching the attorneys get grilled by the justices, I have great respect for any lawyer who presents a case before the Supreme Court. Eight of the nine judges were very engaged in the proceedings and asked pointed, challenging questions of the lawyers for both sides. Obscure cases from decades ago were quoted by both judges and attorneys. Clarence Thomas lived up to his reputation and said nothing during either case. Samuel Alito started a funny exchange when he asked whether the type of chemical mattered in the case. So began a discussion of whether vinegar could be considered a chemical weapon since by the letter of the law, any substance that could kill an animal was included and vinegar could kill a goldfish if it was added to the fishbowl. I don’t remember the lawyer’s response, but he talked himself out of the trap.
Supreme Court cases are not decided right after the oral arguments. The justices take what they’ve learned during questioning and add it to the briefs that each side files in advance. Deliberations, voting, and the writing of majority and dissenting opinions follow some time later. After a little over an hour of debate, Chief Justice Roberts ended the session with the statement, “Case is submitted”. So we left the courtroom having to wait to find out the verdicts.
The decision in the Bond case may have ramifications on a possible future challenge to the provision in the new Federal health care bill that requires people to buy health insurance. That too is a question about federal vs state authority and several “interested parties” such as the conservative Eagle Forum, the libertarian Cato Institute, and the Attorneys General from six states who are suing the government over the health care law have asked the court to broadly consider the question of whether Bond, an individual, has the right to challenge the government. Who knew that when Carol Bond’s husband cheated on her, he would start a chain of events that would eventually end up in the Supreme Court with national political adversaries, both liberal and conservative, anxiously watching.
No comments:
Post a Comment