Is u. S. Supreme court heard oral argument in questioning the constitutional treaty parties. The case bond versus the u. S. Involves governments prosecution in that pennsylvania woman under federal a federal law designed to ban chemical weapons. The woman was found spreading toxic chemicals on her friends personal property. The underlying issue in the case is the question of when the federal government may intrude on powers traditionally given to the states. In this case police powers. Here is the oral argument to that case. We with her arguments in case 12. 158 bond versus United States. Mr. Clement. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. If the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation as the government insists it clearly exceeds congresss limit limited and enumerated powers. This court cases that may clear the bedrock of our system that Congress Backs the General Police power to criminalize conduct without regard to juris
Gas it makes sense to say those are chemical weapons but with respect to otherwise harmless chemicals the only thing under the governments theory that turns them from chemical weapons weapons chemicals into chemical weapons as a verb. Its their malicious use in that puts it yuan an odd situation. If congress had come in and said look there are certain chemicals that by their very nature are almost inherently weaponized congress would have a lot more authority to proceed. Counsel we permit that in all sorts of definitional sections of the criminal code. We call a dangerous weapon anything that you used to inflict serious injury on someone. I dont think of a car is necessarily a dangerous weapon. Its something i used to transport myself. Its only when im using it for a prohibited purpose that it turns itself into a dangerous weapon. So i am having a problem with this noun herb distinction. Why isnt the intentional killing and burning of another human being using chemicals the essence of