10th Amendment

Federalism

(Equal balance)

“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”
 The Tea Party’s favorite part of the Constitution — the 10th Amendment,which
limits federal power — arrived at the Supreme Court last week. In keeping with the spirit
of the times, it came wrapped in the plot of a soap opera.

The amendment has played a starring role in challenges to the recent federal
health care legislation. But the justices have not made the task of divining
their own views particularly easy.

Their most recent consideration of where Congress’s constitutional power

ends came in a case involving the civil commitment of sex offenders.

Now the court has decided to consider what to do about a woman hellbent on
poisoning her best friend.

The woman, Carol A. Bond of Lansdale, Pa., was at first delighted to learn
that her friend was pregnant. Ms. Bond’s mood darkened, though, when it
emerged that her husband was the father. “I am going to make your life a
living hell,” she said, according to her now-former friend, Myrlinda Haynes.

Ms. Bond, a microbiologist, certainly tried. On about two dozen occasions,

she spread lethal chemicals on her friend’s car, mailbox and doorknob.

Ms. Haynes, who managed to escape serious injury, complained to the local
police. They did not respond with particular vigor. After checking to see
whether the white powder on her car was cocaine, they advised her to have it
cleaned.

Federal postal inspectors were more helpful. They videotaped Ms. Bond
stealing mail and putting poison in the muffler of Ms. Haynes’s car.

When it came time to charge Ms. Bond with a crime, federal prosecutors
chose a novel theory. They indicted her not only for stealing mail, an obvious
federal offense, but also for using unconventional weapons in violation of the
Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, a treaty aimed at terrorists and rogue
states.

Had she been prosecuted in state court, Ms. Bond would most likely have
faced a sentence of three months to two years, her lawyers say. In federal
court, she got six years.
 Ms. Bond’s argument on appeal was that Congress did not have the
constitutional power to use a chemical weapons treaty to address a matter of
a sort routinely handled by state authorities.

She relied on the 10th Amendment, the one so beloved by Tea Party activists.
It says that “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.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia

said Ms. Bond’s argument was a serious one of “first impression.” Then the
court ducked answering the question by saying Ms. Bond was not entitled to
raise it. ​Only states, it said, can mount 10th Amendment challenges. *

Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general in the administration of President George

W. Bush, now represents Ms. Bond. He called the idea that Ms. Bond lacks
standing to challenge the law under which she was imprisoned “startling” and
“absurd.”

More broadly, Mr. Clement wrote, the Bond case is an instance of an issue
that has lately united conservatives, libertarians and liberals. ​They say there
are too many federal crimes, that they are often simultaneously vague and
harsh, and that they undermine state authority to maintain public safety.*

Mr. Clement said his client’s poisonous rampage was not “successful or
particularly sophisticated.”*

“Domestic disputes resulting from marital infidelities and culminating in a

thumb burn are appropriately handled by local law enforcement
authorities,”* ​Mr. Clement wrote.​ “Ms. Bond’s assault against her husband’s
paramour did not involve stockpiling chemical weapons, engaging in
chemical warfare”*​ and the like, he added.

In the appeals court, federal prosecutors embraced the idea that Ms. Bond
was powerless to attack her conviction on 10th Amendment grounds. But the
federal government reversed course in the Supreme Court.

“A criminal defendant has standing to defend herself by arguing that the

statute under which she is being prosecuted was beyond Congress’s Article I
authority to enact,”*​ Acting Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal told the justices.
Ms. Bond has been in prison for more than three years. Given that two sides
agree her case was mishandled, the Supreme Court might have summarily
reversed the appeals court’s decision. Instead, it will hear arguments in the
case in the next few months and probably issue a decision by June.

That means the case of the poisoned paramour, known formally as Bond v.
United States, No. 09-1227, will be among the more closely watched this
term.
A Paraphrase of Adam Liptak’s “A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for Daytime TV Heads to
the Supreme Court”

A woman from Lansdale, PA, Carol A. Bond, has tried to poison her friend in
multiple occasions after learning that the baby the friend was pregnant with was of her
husband. Ms. Bond, a microbiologist attempted to poison her friend by placing deadly
chemicals on doorknobs, the friends car, house, etc... The friend, Ms.Haynes, was not
seriously injured. After the incident Ms. Haynes went to the local police to report it.
Upon investigation of her car she was advised to have it cleaned. Federal postal
inspectors managed to capture a video of Ms. Bond in the act of stealing mail and
putting poison in the muffler of Haynes car. They took the case to court. Ms.Bonds case
was taken to federal court. The ruling was 6 years of prison. In the first ruling she was
convicted for violation of ​Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 for using
unconventional weapons and going through private mail. ​Since the case was taken she
has been in prison 3 years. Ms.Bonds has sued for violation of 10th amendment.

After being sentenced she is suing for violation of her 10th amendment. She argues that
the government didn’t have the power to use the Chemical treaty against her since it
should be managed by state authorities. M​S​s​. Bond argues that was unsuccessful and
that since it was related to marital problems it is usually supposed to be handled by local
law enforcement. Acting Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal told the justices that a person
has a right to enact. ​FIX

The article is a reflection of the tenth amendment because it is a dispute of if it should be

handled by the is in question. The article discusses a dispute between a woman who
tried chemical poisoning on her friend and those of the government who believe the case
taken to federal court was ok the main question is, is convicting a woman in federal
court for marital and chemical attempted murder a violation of the 10th amendment?