Analyst's note: Absolutely must read and carefully consider. Obama and the "progressives" / one-worlders clearly think they have found yet another "back door" to prosecute Americans. The importance of this case to American liberty and freedom CAN NOT be over estimated. This time it is the case of Bond vs US now in the Supreme Court that puts our national sovereignty at risk. Obama is using this case to enforce international treaties on U.S. Citizens. This situation shows yet another reason why the United Nations is dangerous and should NOT be operating on our shores. The good news is that even apparently the liberal members of the court, seem highly skeptical of the Obama administration’s argument and the need to go to beyond a State court. Remember that "When the keys are held by someone else liberty means nothing"
We are already living in a time when if we Owe Back Taxes Or Talk Bad About Government? No Travel for You Anymore.
******
The case of Bond vs US, currently before the Supreme Court, is extraordinarily important for the future of liberty the United States. The Obama administration is prosecuting a Carol Bond who tried to poison her husband’s adulterous lover under the global treaty against the use of chemical weapons.
Attempted murder cases are usually tried by state governments, but the Obama administration is using this case an opportunity to enforce international treaties on US Citizens. Today, during oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices, including some of the liberal members of the court, were highly skeptical of the Obama administration’s argument.
from SCOTUS Blog:
"Justice Sotomayor said “it would be deeply ironic” if the Court were to find unconstitutional the U.S. role under the chemical weapons treaty at the very time the global community was trying to deal with Syria. Justice Elena Kagan cautioned about asking judges to try to “get into the minds” of those negotiating world treaties like the chemical weapons pact.
But Verrilli seemed to be tested more rigorously in trying to persuade the Court not to start drawing lines to limit treaty power or treaty implementation, as the more conservative Justices — sometimes using sarcasm — challenged his core argument. The conservatives were joined in their challenges by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who often is a strong defender of national government power.
But it was Breyer who seemed to irritate Verrilli the most, when the Justice discussed how open-ended the weapons treaty was — so much so that it might even reach disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong’s use of performance-enhancing drugs — and pressed Verrilli to say what limits, if any, there were on the treaty’s reach. “Hypotheticals are just hypotheticals; they are not real cases,” Verrilli shot back.
Verrilli, though, also had to face some tart responses. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., said that the hypotheticals the Justices were reciting were not real cases “because you haven’t prosecuted them.” Alito went on to test the government position by noting that, a few days ago, he and his wife had passed out “chemical weapons” to children — that is, Halloween chocolate. He noted that “chocolate is poisonous to dogs,” and the treaty bans the use of any chemical harmful to animals as well as humans.
When Justice Breyer commented lightly that “there was chocolate all over the place,” Verrilli bluntly commented: “This is serious business.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., repeatedly questioned the Solicitor General about whether there is any constitutional limit on Congress’s power to enter treaties or implement them, and whether a treaty could give Congress the authority to claim ”national police powers.” Verrilli answered that it would be ”unimaginable that the Senate would ratify” such a treaty.
But that answer prompted Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to say: “It seems unimaginable that you did bring this prosecution (of Carol Bond).”
read the rest
This case has applications far beyond just the Obama administration. If the Supreme Court rules in favor, it opens the door for Obama and future Presidents to lean on international treaties to regulate Americans’ behavior.
******
