10th Amendment 

Federalism 

(Federalism) 

Any power not given to the United States 

Government is given to the states or the people 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A 10th Amendment Drama Fit for
Daytime TV Heads to the Supreme
Court
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”
Carol Bond tried to poison her best friend Myrlinda Haynes when she learned that her
husband had gotten Ms. Haynes pregnant. Ms. Bond, a microbiologist in Lansdale, Pennsylvania,
spread lethal chemicals on Ms. Haynes’s car, mailbox and door knob on approximately two
dozen occasions in her campaign to make Ms. Haynes’s life “a living hell.” The local police
failed to take the threats very seriously; however, federal prosecutors took a more active interest
and videotaped Ms. Bond stealing mail and putting poison in the muffler of her former friend’s
car. Ms. Haynes was not seriously injured. Nevertheless, based on this evidence, federal
prosecutors indicted Ms. Bond under the traditional federal offense of stealing mail, and also the
novel theory of using unconventional weapons in violation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention of 1993, a treaty aimed at terrorists and rogue states. As a result of being prosecuted
in federal, instead of state court, Ms. Bond received a sentence of six years instead of three
months to two years.
Ms. Bond appealed her conviction based on the Tenth Amendment, a favorite of Tea
Party activists, which states 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.” Ms. Bond’s argument was that Congress did not have the constitutional power to use a
chemical weapons treaty to address a matter that is routinely handled by the state authorities.
Paul Clements, a former solicitor general in the administration of President George W. Bush
representing Ms. Bond, said that Ms. Bond’s plight united people of different beliefs, such as
conservatives, libertarians and liberals, who all feel that there are too many federal crimes, that
they are too vague and harsh, and that they undermine state authority to maintain public safety.
Mr. Clements argued that his client’s serial poisonings motivated by marital infidelity were
neither “successful” nor “sophisticated” and “did not involve stockpiling chemical weapons” or
“engaging in chemical warfare”; therefore, they were more appropriately handled by local law
enforcement. A three judge panel of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia said Ms. Bond’s
argument was a case of “first impression,” but Ms. Bond did not have standing to raise it since
only states can raise Tenth Amendment challenges, an argument Mr. Clements called both
“startling and absurd.” The federal government reversed its position in the Supreme Court,
stating that 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.”
The article is a reflection of the Tenth Amendment because it addresses the issue of
whether Congress had the constitutional power to prosecute Ms. Bond for her attempts to poison
her husband’s mistress under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was aimed at terrorists
and rogue states. The article discussed a dispute between an individual, Ms. Bond, and the U.S.
government. The main question is whether Congress exceeded its power by prosecuting her
under the Chemical Weapons Convention for crimes usually handled by state law enforcement.