Source: https://angrybearblog.com/2014/05/the-supreme-courts-opinion-in-bond-v-u-s-will-be-about-separation-of-powers-but-about-separation-of-which-powers-2.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:54:19+00:00

Document:
Angry Bear » The Supreme Court’s opinion in Bond v. U.S. will be about separation of powers. But about separation of WHICH powers?
Your comment puzzles me. If the Court rules that the federal government overreached in prosecuting Ms Bond, that will strengthen Reid v. Covert, which teaches that the Treaty clause does not empower the Pres. and Senate to override Const,. protections, rather than weaken it. In my opinion, the court ought to expand on Reid and say that the Treaty clause does not empower the Pres. and Senate to violate structural principles any more than it allows them to violate enumerated protections.
(1) 5 conservatives will hold that treaty implementation power only covers actions required of a signatory, therefore the possession, receipt, etc. statute is not supported by the treaty power. Liberals will say that implementation power alone or in combination with necessary and proper support the statute. Breyer writes separately to say ability to legislate beyond treaty language is narrow but sufficiently close in this case.
(2) 4 liberals plus Roberts will hold that commerce clause would support the comprehensive regulation of toxic substances but because the indictment lacks a commerce clause allegation, the conviction is reversed. Conservatives minus Roberts say that Lopez applies, commerce power cannot justify police power.
Your comment indicates that you understand perfectly the point of my post, Mike. Reid v. Covert indeed teaches that the Treaty clause does not empower the president and Senate to override the Constitution’s protections guaranteed to individual American citizens, in that case, to a U.S. citizen living abroad and tried and convicted, by a military tribunal, of murdering her husband.
THAT would avoid a de facto reversal of what Holmes actually said in Missouri v. Holland, as I read that opinion.
Thanks for clearing some of that up. We are in agreement that Carol Bond should win, but we disagree on the point that she should win only because her own individual constitutional rights were violated by a bizarre application of a federal statute.
As I see it, Bond can claim her right to due process was violated since the Federal government lacks authority under the treaty clause to exercise police power reserved to the states (reserved by way of structural principles).
Surely Ms. Bond does not have a constitutional right to poison her rival, but she does have a due process right. The reason that right has been violated is that the Federal government lacks authority to punish her offense, and the treaty clause cannot furnish that authority. The court should strike down the fed government’s claim that it does.
You say the fed government’s application of the chemical weapons treaty as relates to the Bond case is “bizarre”, but if that application does not exceed the Pres. and Senate’s grant of power under the treaty clause it must be constitutional, unless the court is to find that “bizarre” applications are unconstitutional even though the grant of power is not exceeded.
Reid v. Covert has almost nothing to do with Bond v. US. It would have come out the same if Covert had committed the murder on a military post in the US and she had been tried by a court martial; the Court said only that the treaty power did not alter Covert’s rights vis-a-vis the federal government.
For the conservative legal movement, as B Mann says, Bond is only a hobby horse to ride toward a states rights agenda. This conservative position (1) is atextual, arising from Kennedy’s bloviations on constitutional structure, see Alden v. Maine; and (2) ignores the changes in federal-state relations arising out of the Civil War’s verdict that the federal power was superior to the state power and the Progressive/New Deal idea that the federal government had the power to address national economic and social problems even within the boundaries of the states..
Romanette said: the Court said only that the treaty power did not alter Covert’s rights vis-a-vis the federal government..
And that pisses you off? And you would be even more enraged if the Court were to say that the treaty clause does not empower the Pres. and the Senate to alter the structural principles which leave the police powers with the States thus protecting Bond from an overreach by federal prosecutors?
The Liberal agenda for ever enlarging federal power trumps any concern they sometimes feign for individual rights. This was made plain in Kelo, Raich, and most recently NFIBvSebilius.
I am fine with a strong federal government; when it becomes necessary to mobiliize the nation on behalf of the national interest, only a national government will do. When we passed from being a society of agriculture and small trade, we passed beyond the vision of the founding generation. Economy and technology and popular culture long ago became national. States have become an impediment to democracy because of the vast population disparities they impose on representation and the heterogeneity they hide. To be a democracy, we at least need to use population-weighted voting in the Senate. Also, something needs to be done about winner-take-all voting.
This is not to say that local concerns are unimportant. I have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to watch several African governments as they try to restructure themselves to be more representative and to find the balance between centralization and decentralization. Some of the things I have learned are that all service delivery is local, and local government boundaries have to be based on the communities in which people live, which change over time; that there is a need for an intermediate level of government to coordinate government services and harmonize parochial interests; that the intermediate level is appropriate for choosing the national legislature because otherwise the legislature becomes too large; and that the national level is appropriate for defining policy and making sure that the intermediate levels are carrying it out, even to the extent of appointing and removing administrators. Schemes with more levels generally reflect difficulties in transportation and communication which no longer exist.
Something the U.S. Supreme Court will not intervene in, or fight over.
State court violations of veterans’ VA disability compensation in disregard of State law, as well the Constitution of the United States have been forwarded (6/23/14), to all nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court, who in 2012 denied a petition on this issue by disabled Air Force veteran Peter Barclay. Justices now have stored in their court clerk’s file, my questions of law I find concerning these violations. Namely, “Separation of powers, Due Process, The Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause,” as well, various veterans’ laws, the property protections of veterans benefits. The point of this mailing? This is now not something the Justices, and as well, the United States Senate and House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs now have not been made aware of. What they do with this information, if anything, will tell you a great deal. The parties have been advised of the following.
Divorce is, and can be complicated process. However, keeping in mind, that in each case during the court’s initial property distribution rulings of alimony/support, before any conceivable consideration, in determining VA disability compensation as an award of alimony/support, first and foremost, the court’s duty to the veteran, enforcement of the protections secured by the Constitution. “State sovereignty is not a proper basis on which to rest jurisdiction. Instead the focus is on whether the defendant’s due process rights are infringed by the court’s assertion of jurisdiction.” Civil Procedure 4th Ed. West group.
Oregon resident, Peter James Barclay, a disabled Air Force veteran, May 2 2012, filed with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for a writ of certiorari.
On Oct 1 2012 Petition was DENIED.
This decision fell on all disabled veterans when Peter Barclay was denied his Constitutional rights by Oregon’s State and Supreme court and refusal of the United States Supreme Court to consider his petition. All the while interestingly, permanent alimony reform continues, and has been proposed in Oregon and, as well, legislated in several states, all without one thought of the disabled veteran.
The issue is VA medical disability compensation, the property rights of the disabled veteran, in what VA medical doctors, medical professionals have determined a disabled veterans injuries should be compensated for. If, and when the question is a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation property rights, it’s time that disabled veterans voices be heard in a matter that has long concerned them. State court judges continue to ignore the disabled veteran, and the law, i.e., 38 USC 5301, 10 USC 1408. “Separation of powers” doctrine is mandated to end this attempt by the state court to manipulate, overlook, and circumvent the law, and manage to stick it to the disabled veteran.
It is said that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Forgotten long ago are the property rights of the disabled veterans. Why? It is clear the court’s have no legal right to, exercise, determine, or consider in any equitable calculation thereof, to divide federal VA disability benefits, in order to further enforce judgment arbitrarily in disregard of property rights. The “separation of powers” doctrine imposes the assumption that the state court, in attacking the disabled veterans legal right to claim as exempt, his or her VA disability compensation, further requires subject matter jurisdiction, which address the court’s constitutional or statutory power to entertain a particular controversy. State court’s have the sworn duty and responsibility to enforce federal law. The court’s continued attempt to override VA administered rehabilitative medical services determinations, of disability compensation is not within the courts purview, legal right or jurisdiction to invade.
Disabled veteran’s, and the “separation of powers” doctrine, both overlooked, ignored, for years, by most state court judges. Policy making outside their jurisdiction of constitutional boundaries in re-evaluating and considering long held established VA protocols, of a disabled veteran‘s VA disability compensation for purposes other than rehabilitation and health of the veteran. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals. Violating the property rights of a disabled veteran’s earned VA disability compensation “..once they are delivered to the veteran..,” the blatant disregard of 38 USC 5301, “and shall not be liable to ..…or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.“ and the 14th Amendment, to further degrade property rights of the disabled veteran, runs afoul of the “separation of powers” doctrine. Injurious, and an abuse of power to allow what is happening, was this the intent of Congress?
A disabled veteran’s plea to the judge, “I have a very severe serious back injury, I do need all of my VA disability compensation.” The judge will, of course reply, “Are you a doctor?” The practice of medicine is a privilege and a calling, and that it combines both art and science. And yet, in these non-life threatening health issues, acting as a provider of health care, state court judges independently take on the serious role of playing doctor, prescribe without medical license or knowledge VA medical compensation issues. A practice forbidden, providing penalties by law, and border on medical negligence in maintaining it’s own state health practice standards.
Despite a ruling by the United State court of appeals, in VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE, VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, December 13, 2011, in refusing to exceed their jurisdiction over service-related disability compensation, state courts judges, yes… purposely overlook and violate this canon of law.
A State’s navigable streams are regulated as commerce throughout it’s travel, to protect against pollution, and it’s effect to protect it’s health all along it’s travels. This is no different from a veterans VA disability compensation benefit, navigating it’s way across many states, and just as well recognized as commerce, regulated. State courts failing the constitutional standards for establishing a state priority over the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, have shown no State interest to protect the health and well being, or the property interests of a disabled veteran.
Realizing laws protecting VA disability compensation as exempt, state courts, therefore are unable, in any legal standing, to secure garnishment of veteran’s VA disability compensation. The court not satisfied, in a final move, will now consider, from any source, an equitable calculation of veteran’s resources, to include…. the very same disability compensation the court has acknowledged as exempt in determining court awarded support. Suggesting the use of a veteran’s disability compensation, or go to jail! As has happened. The mere mention, innuendo, or thought of VA disability compensation to satisfy indemnity obligations as a equitable consideration in any form, thought or calculation of VA disability compensation, suggests interference, in matters identified as exempt, are beyond the State courts jurisdiction, under “separation of powers” doctrine. The court has the responsibility to recognize “property” as a “due process’ right and the states obligation to uphold the State Constitution’s “separation of powers” doctrine.
The federal agency’s Veterans Administration Secretary knowing of these concerns remains oblivious to what is their responsibility of care to veterans is, and remains unconcerned as to exactly what their administrative duty is to protect VA disability benefits from those who freely encroach on those constitutional responsibilities that clearly belong to the Veterans Administration. I find no duty of the Secretary to surrender control of VA disability benefits so freely to the States. The issue of disabled veterans right to property is about the law, and not setting a precedent.
As a veterans advocate, and a Korean era veteran, I am neither disabled or in any divorce action. The reality of law from the disabled veteran’s view.
As a Korean era veteran, I am neither disabled, or in any divorce action. Because of the Supreme Court of the United States and Oregon’s indefensible and unconscionable treatment of disabled veterans, reflects the unforgivable uncaring of most States, and it’s legislators towards their disabled veterans. Something that is happening now, in your state! Happening… because of Oregon’s rulings. The practice by State courts nationwide reliance on forum shopping and the false notion of ‘stare decisis’ “to stand by things decided.” (However, not happening in the only state that has not forgotten about the sacrifice disabled veterans gave to their country, IOWA).
The reason Veterans disability compensation is not protected.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.