Bond v. United States, Individual Standing to Enforce the Tenth Amendment, and a Short, Succinct, Indictment of the War on Drugs

Yesterday’s unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States handed down by the United States Supreme Court yesterday may give individuals the right to challenge Federal Drug laws as unconstitutional infringements on individuals rights resulting from unconstitutional usurpations of Federal Power in realms reserved to and properly governed by the States under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  This case marks a surprising and unexpected unanimous endorsement of the nearly dormant constitutional doctrine of States’ Rights.  

Hopefully, other suits will follow Bond in attacking other Federal Laws, including the vast number of statutes in Titles 18 and 42 which unconstitutionally control and criminalize possession and sale of a number of drugs and medicinal substances and practices in the United States.  This case could mark a HUGE step forward towards liberty and backwards from totalitarianism—we can only hope.


When I worked as a Judicial Law Clerk in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the only other Judge besides Kenneth L. Ryskamp in Palm Beach was the Honorable James C. Paine, who passed away March 8, 2010, at the age of 85. The Southern District of Florida is one of the primary “gateways” for drugs entering the United States.  Judge Paine distinguished himself among Federal Judges as a champion of rationality when, going against the grain and the Federal law he was charged to enforce, he spoke out and campaigned vigorously against the war on drugs.  I remember James C. Paine with the greatest fondness and admiration.  “My Judge,” the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, generally opposed legalisation but realized the enormous social and economic costs of the war.  I particularly recall how he emotionally (in court) described many of the convictions according to that war as “national” or even “worldwide” tragedies—I especially remember the case of Michael Wludarczsik, a cold war hero from East Germany who jumped the Berlin Wall and escaped to the West in a hail of bullets in about 1971.  Wludarczsik was a world navigator and expert seaman, an archaeologist, biogeographer, and undersea explorer with Jacques Cousteau, not to mention husband to a beautiful wife with at least two small, beautiful children I recall in the Courtroom.  Many, many decent people and businessmen, upstanding members of the community, including a close doctor friend of my family in Dallas, Dr. John W. Fisher, M.D., have been prosecuted and their lives destroyed needlessly by this government’s pseudo-Maoist, communist-totalitarian war on drugs….  Real Capitalists, real supporters of freedom, oppose governmental regulation of drugs. Unlike Slavery and Alcohol, there was never a constitutional amendment prohibiting any sort of drugs?  How, then, can drugs be made illegal without a constitutional amendment when slavery and alcohol each required such an amendment?  Well, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, of course—as reinterpreted under American Socialism starting with the beginning of the New Deal in 1933—has been construed as recently as Raich v. Gonzalez in the past decade to permit the U.S. Government to regulate absolutely ANYTHING and EVERYTHING under the Commerce Clause—leading to a hopeless perversion of the Constitution and manifold abrogation of individual freedom and states’ rights in the United States.  The War on Drugs, like the War on the Family (“Domestic Relations reform”), and the War on Private Property (“securitization and the Mortgage crisis”) is one of the three communistic diseases eating away at the soul and substance of America in our time.  All three of these “wars on the people” were envisioned by Marx and directly stem from the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

This short video hits some of the high points of why the War on Drugs is a total failure, and needs to be scrapped “in toto.”

Every American who must register their purchases of such innocuous over-the-counter substances as Sudafed and Allegra-D (including the author of this blog) may well now have INDIVIDUAL standing to sue to challenge the oppressive and intrusive laws authorizing the “schedules” of controlled substances under the commerce clause—Three Cheers for the (so very rarely both UNANIMOUS and CORRECT!!!) Supreme Court in the case of Bond v. United States.  09-1227 Bond v. United States (06:16:2011)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s