Could a Treaty Make You a Criminal?

The Consent Chronicle

This is the official email newsletter of the Zero Aggression Project and, Inc.

A new Supreme Court legal brief attempts to restore 10th Amendment

In the 1920 case, Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can pass legislation to impose treaty terms on U.S. citizens. They can do this even if this legislation falls outside the scope of the federal powers enumerated in the Constitution. Since then…

Presidents and Congresses have conspired to use the Holland ruling to vastly expand federal power.

One result has been an explosion of statutes creating new federal offenses.

These are laws imposed on you, by treaty — “laws” that fall outside the enumerated boundaries of the Constitution.

The Constitution established perhaps six federal crimes (the exact number is debatable, but quite small). ALL other criminal laws were left to the lower states and localities.

Today there are more than 6,000 federal offenses. Many of these were created using the Holland decision. But now . . .

The Bond II case gives us a chance to reverse this.

  • Bond I dealt with a case where Carol Ann Bond was prosecuted under federal rules dealing with chemical weapons after she attempted to poison a female rival.
  • Bond argued that the 10th Amendment denies any federal power to prosecute her. She should have been charged under Pennsylvania’s criminal laws.
  • A lower court rejected Bond’s argument, saying that only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could bring such a 10th Amendment challenge.
  • But the Supreme Court ruled that Bond had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law. They sent her case back through the lower courts with instructions to hear her challenge.
  • There, the Federal State successfully argued that treaty power trumped Bond’s Tenth Amendment rights. In fact, the judges wrote…

“…the arguable consequence of Missouri v. Holland is that treaties and associated legislation are simply not subject to Tenth Amendment scrutiny, no matter how far into the realm of states’ rights the President and Congress may choose to venture.”

Does that disgust you? Do you want to do something about it?

We’re filing a brief arguing that the 10th Amendment should limit what the federal government can agree to in a treaty, rather than allowing treaties to override the 10th Amendment.

Can you help us fund this brief? Such donations are tax deductible if you itemize your tax return.

There are two paths of support. You can make a…

  • Monthly pledge, which permits us to plan ahead when other cases come along. We said yes to this Bond II brief, because of present pledged support.
  • One-time contribution. We’re looking for at least one $1,000 donor for this effort, along with dozens of smaller contribution.

You can use the secure online form at the Downsize DC Foundation.

Thanks for your support!

Jim Babka
Downsize DC Foundation

P.S. Stay tuned. Thanks to your support, more good news and progress is coming!

t h e C o n s e n t C h r o n i c l e

Reply to this message if you need help. We’re eager to assist.

Forwarding or reprinting is encouraged so long as you retain the attribution and action links and do not edit.

The Zero Aggression Project exposes the criminal violence initiated by The State and promotes the Zero Aggression Principle as the alternative., Inc. is dedicated to withdrawing consent from State criminality. These are non-profit, public education organizations with operations at: 1931 15th St., Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202*521*1200. The Consent Chronicle normally publishes four times per week.