Chief Justice Roberts Is Weak

Trigger

Just read “John Roberts' Constitutional Avoidance

In Bond v. United States, the chief justice used a "saving construction" to avoid a constitutional showdown. Sound familiar?”(Source)

Unfortunately, the Chief Justice turns out to be a very weak one. Instead of upholding the U.S. Constitution, he let's big government get away with too many things. He like so many other supreme justices do not understand what is meant by constitutional "checks and balances" and the responsibility of the judiciary.

The Case

The whole case here was absurd to begin with The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (the convention is a treaty with foreign governments) for a personal assault using a chemical irritant. The individual was sentenced to six years in federal prison under the terms of this act. Her crime, she smeared two toxic chemicals on the doorknob, car door, and mailbox of a woman who had been having an affair with her husband. The victim suffered a slight burn to one hand.

Takeaway

I have already previously argued here that the Chief Justice ruined his legacy when he cast the decisive vote on upholding ObamaCare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

This law should have been declared unconstitutional as it allows for such egregious prosecutions under federal law as happened in this case. Or as the the three partial dissenters appear to have expressed it as “that fact rendered it an unconstitutional exercise of federal power” (Source). Or simply the U.S. Congress did a sloppy job when they implemented this international convention as domestic law.

One of the key phrases used in the Supreme Court decision:

“that “[i]f the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute” that implements

it “as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government”

Of course the implementation of an international treaty into domestic law should always be disputed as necessary and proper until proven so. This is way too much deference to federal power!

See also the detailed discussion about this subject in the opinion of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Essentially these three Justices are warning that about anything could be introduced as domestic law affecting all aspects of domestic life if an international treaty requires it.

Overcriminalization And Expansion Of Federal Power

This case represents another fine example how the federal government constantly overcriminalizes petty offenses in myriad of ways and of how federal powers are becoming more and more expansive.