Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Give me a break!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-03-14 09:47 PM
Original message
Give me a break!
This may be the first time in at least ten years that I am on the side of the Supreme Court.

This case involved a love triangle that led to a clumsy attempted murder, the quintessential state crime. For some reason, the D of J decided to make a federal case out of it, literally.

Married couple. Enter wife's best friend, who becomes pregnant by husband. Wife puts poison on friend's door and other places outside the friend's home. Friend gets a rash from touching the door and warns, among others, mailman. USPS uses hidden cameras, which nail the wife. D of J prosecutes the wife for violating international treaty banning chemical weapons. Well, not the treaty per se, but a US statute implementing the treating.

Supreme Court skeptical about use of chemical weapons treaty in charging wife

The Supreme Court heard a case Tuesday involving the prosecution of a Pennsylvania microbiologist who used toxic chemicals to try to settle a personal score. Federal prosecutors charged the woman with using 'chemical weapons.'

By Warren Richey, Staff writer / November 5, 2013

The Obama administrations top constitutional lawyer warned the US Supreme Court on Tuesday to tread lightly in a case involving the international treaty banning chemical weapons.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the justices that any effort to narrow the administrations expansive interpretation of its powers under the treaty could make it harder to enforce existing treaties and negotiate future accords at precisely the time when sensitive efforts are under way in Syria.

The story says that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan seem to be siding with the D of J's right to prosecute this woman. Much as I love Justice Ginsburg, if she finds in favor of the D of J, that will only be more proof that the Republican judges are not the only ones who make political, rather than judicial decisions.

Clearly, the Constitution was never intended to give the feds jurisdiction over purely local crimes, amply covered by state law. Nor should an international treaty, designed to control use by nations of chemical weapons in warfare, reach a lover triangle.

The mail carrier was clearly not the intended victim. Even if he were, the attempted should have been prosecuted under a federal attempted murder statue, not one implementing an international treaty.

Between things like the above and the Un-Patriot Act, with its Homeland Stasi, we are coming close to posse comitatus. The fault with the posse comitatus act, of course, is that it applies only to military personnel, not to the federal government in general. For that, we have to rely on the Constitution and the general scheme intended initially, namely, a federal government of limited powers.

The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

The Act, as modified in 1981, refers to the Armed Forces of the United States. It does not apply to the National Guard under state authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within its home state or in an adjacent state if invited by that state's governor. The United States Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security, is also not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act, primarily because the Coast Guard has both a maritime law enforcement mission and a federal regulatory agency mission.

The Schiavo case should never have been a federal matter. Neither should marriage.

People like me have little enough control over government as it is, even, in major cities like Boston, over purely local government. If everything becomes federalized, we are totally lost. Even in the comparatively tiny nation of 1789, people knew that, which is why they feared the federal government and (thank God Almighty) made the Framers add the amendments that we call Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

How did they make them do it then? IMO, they made them do it by very recently having fought a Revolution to overthrow a government.
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-04-14 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. I understand your concerns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jan 18th 2018, 07:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC