That’s the message that Kevin Gutzman gave on the recent Bond decision, which ruled that an individual can sue the feds under the 10th Amendment.
From 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court did not rule a single congressional statute unconstitutional. One cannot take for granted that any constitutional provision will be respected if asserted against Congress in a federal court. Consider the most important pattern of congressional disrespect for the Constitution: violation of the 10th Amendment in exercise of Congress’s spending power. Good luck challenging that.
While, in principle, the idea that a single person should be able to sue the feds is correct, in my opinion – Gutzman points out a stark reality, the Supremes almost NEVER invalidate congress. So do our hopes remain in politically-connected lawyers in black dresses? Nah.
Hi Michael,
The reason why "the Supremes almost NEVER invalidate congress" is because no INDIVIDUAL (single human) goes in and asks them to!
I sure wish you would re-think your take on this "Bond" decision because it is the best case I've read!
Also, I've noticed that many lawyers are saying this is not a "landmark" case, and this is because no lawyer takes the perspective that the individual is more powerful than the attorney! (All attorney power comes from legislation.)
Zeke
I think the decision itself is great – and validates some important issues.
BUT – I know from decades of decisions that the federal courts are not a reliable source for stemming federal power.
Year after year, case after case – they have made decisions that are contrary to the constitution. And you think just having an individual now ask them will have them reverse how they rule?
Gonzales v Raich for example?
nah. let me know how that turns out for ya….