# can you explain the importance of the Bond case infront of SCOTUS? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 12, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271 "2014-05-12T13:07:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/21 "2014-05-13T00:34:16Z")
I don’t know. But if it is based on the criteria of South Dakota v Dole, then NCLB is tied to a specific Federal interest, the conditions on any funding is clear, it isn’t unconstitutional, and the conditions are not coersive. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/22 "2014-05-13T03:36:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This was back in 1920 when the federal government was a lot smaller in scope. I would tend to agree that treaty powers, by themselves, are a pretty minor issue nowadays. > > On the one hand, I’d say the Supreme Court isn’t going to want to overturn this established principle for such a minor gain. It won’t have much effect on the scope of the federal government because that now relies much more strongly on other principles like the commerce clause. But it could have a serious impact on foreign policy because you’d be opening the door for governors and state legislatures to challenge treaties on the basis they violated state sovereignty. This would give state officials opportunities to grandstand for political purposes. > > But who knows? The Supreme Court might decide this is a good place to begin pushing back the reach of the federal government. It won’t have much practical effect but it will establish a precedent for latter cases that might challenge federal power on more significant grounds, like the aforementioned commerce clause. Isn’t that what the ACA decision did? The court rejected the ICC argument but said the health care requirement was a tax. Roberts snuck a roadblock to ICC into precedent while avoiding the activist judge label, yet giving the finger to legislators who expected him to do what they couldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/23 "2014-05-13T14:16:23Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Then explain why states could not escape the requirements of NCLB. The stick for NCLB compliance was the loss of 10% of Title I funding. As **Ravenman** puts it, not enough of a cut to be coercive (probably.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/24 "2014-05-13T18:21:12Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > And it seems worth noting that for all that everyone says that Federal government has to have an explicit, enumerated right in order to do something, the enumerated rights of the Federal government include the following: > > “The Congress shall have Power To […] provide for the […] general Welfare of the United States” > > So if they can make any argument that a law is for the general welfare of the nation, then they have that right. It seems harder to think of things that wouldn’t fall under that heading than things which would, so really the limitation seem to be defined more by the Supreme Court’s mood that day than by anything in the Constitution. Such an interpretation doesn’t hold up to more than a few moments of thought. Forget that the founders themselves said that the feds were one of few and limited powers. Forget that the clause only speaks of enacting taxes and paying debts for the general welfare. Forget that the 10th amendment exists. The best argument against this type of expansionist thinking is how absurd it would be to list the powers of the federal government if it simply defaulted to “anything they damn well please.” Why, for example, the need to say that Congress has the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads”? Isn’t that in the general welfare? Isn’t it a necessary and proper regulation of interstate commerce? Wouldn’t a good subject of international treaties be postal maintenance for communications between countries? Why the need to list such specific things if every single aspect of life can be rolled into the general welfare clause? At least to me, the listing of such seemingly mundane things only reinforces my belief that the founders meant for Congress to only have those powers and that spending for the general welfare, or doing necessary and proper things, or enacting treaties were only to be done for the purposes of effectuating those enumerated powers. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/25 "2014-05-14T03:18:20Z")
jtgain, Isn’t the argument against this that the founders realized that they could not anticipate every need of a new and growing nation and so deliberately put in a clause that would allow action in unspecified areas because limiting it to those areas is what would be absurd. The general welfare clause is one of the most debated so there is no one single “right” interpretation. “Anything they damn well please” has indeed been rejected by the courts. But my understanding is that so is your limited to “effectuating those enumerated powers” interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/26 "2014-05-14T04:18:47Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > jtgain, Isn’t the argument against this that the founders realized that they could not anticipate every need of a new and growing nation and so deliberately put in a clause that would allow action in unspecified areas because limiting it to those areas is what would be absurd. > > The general welfare clause is one of the most debated so there is no one single “right” interpretation. “Anything they damn well please” has indeed been rejected by the courts. But my understanding is that so is your limited to “effectuating those enumerated powers” interpretation. But is that the case? We take for granted the social changes brought by technological change, producing new circumstances. Since about 1800, technology each generation lived in noticeably different times than their parents. In 1780, before the industrial revolution was obvious, was “unforeseen changes” a concept anyone would recognize? Or would people just think their world was simply getting more settled, but this generations issues were no different than the last few? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/27 "2014-05-14T05:35:03Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > jtgain, Isn’t the argument against this that the founders realized that they could not anticipate every need of a new and growing nation and so deliberately put in a clause that would allow action in unspecified areas because limiting it to those areas is what would be absurd. > > The general welfare clause is one of the most debated so there is no one single “right” interpretation. “Anything they damn well please” has indeed been rejected by the courts. But my understanding is that so is your limited to “effectuating those enumerated powers” interpretation. What the heck are you talking about? The general welfare clause is not an independent grant of power. It’s a qualification of the taxing power, as Thomas Jefferson made clear: > [@](#): > > …the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. [The Congress is] not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. Congress has never grounded any legislation in the general welfare clause, apart from spending. In other words, Congress has never said, “We have the power to legislate in this area because of the general welfare clause.” The Supreme Court has thus never ruled on an attempt to do so. I am not aware of any authority that holds otherwise. When you say the clause is “one of the most debated,” by whom, and under what terms, do you mean? Congress has never ever used the general welfare clause to justify subject matter jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2014, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/28 "2014-05-14T15:09:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What the heck are you talking about? The same thing you are, apparently, since your words are an extremely close paraphrase of this authoritative page, [SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE](http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html) - without bothering to mention the following interesting paragraphs. > [@](#): > > With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support. From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements" constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the administrations of Washington and Jefferson. Since 1914, federal grants– in–aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace. … > > In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., however, the Court had invoked “the great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare” to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park. > > Finally, in United States v. Butler, the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court: “Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.” I’m not about to argue your considerable knowledge of law. However, it’s possible and perhaps likely that I’ve done more reading in history than you have. The arguments over what type of government the U.S. would have, both in theory during the Constitutional debates and in practice as first Hamilton and then Jefferson and Madison developed frameworks, are a particular interest. Whether Congress has argued this or not, it appears that the courts have and have settled the matter against jtgain’s interpretation. I may be reading that page incorrectly. IANAL. I would like to be corrected on my failings in law, however, and not on your failings in history. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/29 "2014-05-15T13:14:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t know. But if it is based on the criteria of South Dakota v Dole, then NCLB is tied to a specific Federal interest, \ And this is the part I don’t get but maybe it is the Federalist in me. Are not “Federal Interests” enumerated in I,8? Why can the Federal government step out of their limited powers and declare anything they want to be a federal interest. At least with the highway it ties into ICC and free movement between states (although I agree with O’Conner that neither one of those has anything to do with legal drinking age) but nowhere in the Constitution does the Federal government have any interest in education except in Washington D.C. and territories/possessions. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/30 "2014-05-15T14:05:35Z")
Isn’t every federal activity performed by spending money? If the restriction is that the only thing they can do by the welfare clause is spending money, that’s no restriction at all. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/31 "2014-05-15T14:11:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Why can the Federal government step out of their limited powers and declare anything they want to be a federal interest. That’s not a terrible question, actually. As far as I can tell, NCLB and the underlying Elementary and Secondary Education Act have never been challenged as a federal overreach. This is probably because nobody has standing to challenge because they don’t harm anyone. If you’re a state, you can’t demonstrate harm because you can refuse Title I funds. If you’re a child or parent, you don’t have taxpayer standing because it’s not an Establishment Clause issue. I suspect the ESEA would have been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’ 13th and 14th Amendment powers anyway since its purpose is to ensure “equal” educational opportunities. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/32 "2014-05-15T14:24:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t know. But if it is based on the criteria of South Dakota v Dole, then NCLB is tied to a specific Federal interest, the conditions on any funding is clear, it isn’t unconstitutional, and the conditions are not coersive. Just taking the opportunity to point out–once again–that this legal question will be at the heart of the next century of litigation. It is called the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and it is woefully underdeveloped, but completely necessary and arising more and more often. If any law students out there are looking to go into academia, you can write yourself a golden ticket by finding something original to say about this. In particular, the trouble is defining what is and what is not coercive. If the federal government offers the state some benefit that is better than what the state would get in the absence of any federal action, is that coercion? If I offer you $1000 to wash my car, have I coerced you? What if I’ve been paying you $500 just to wash the windows, does that make my $1000 offer a coercive one? I wouldn’t have thought so. But the ACA opinion on the Medicaid expansion seems to cast some doubt on that. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/33 "2014-05-15T14:27:35Z")
There are 1,300 law review articles about it (not including the ones that are only in Hein) so I don’t know that it’s _that_ underdeveloped (though in fairness there are already 700 about the Affordable Care Act.) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/34 "2014-05-15T14:35:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There are 1,300 law review articles about it (not including the ones that are only in Hein) so I don’t know that it’s _that_ underdeveloped (though in fairness there are already 700 about the Affordable Care Act.) It’s underdeveloped in two senses: (1) the courts have had very little to say about it, and most of what they have said is incoherent; (2) the academic writing about it is still very protean–with basically four or five articles constituting the canon on the subject notwithstanding hundreds of articles essentially saying nothing original, none of which have been taken seriously even at the district court level–and in which we’re still discussing whether there can be a coherent doctrine of coercion that applies to different kinds of rights or not, and whether cases like Nolan are part of that doctrine or not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/35 "2014-05-15T14:48:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Isn’t every federal activity performed by spending money? If the restriction is that the only thing they can do by the welfare clause is spending money, that’s no restriction at all. No – they can criminalize actions. Can Congress create a federal criminal law that punishes a punch in the nose? No – absent some federal nexus, like the nose belonging to a Congressman or an FBI agent. And that’s the debate here. Congress passed a criminal law; Bond was charged under it. Did Congress have the power to pass that criminal law? > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I’m not about to argue your considerable knowledge of law. However, it’s possible and perhaps likely that I’ve done more reading in history than you have. The arguments over what type of government the U.S. would have, both in theory during the Constitutional debates and in practice as first Hamilton and then Jefferson and Madison developed frameworks, are a particular interest. Whether Congress has argued this or not, it appears that the courts have and have settled the matter against jtgain’s interpretation. > > I may be reading that page incorrectly. IANAL. I would like to be corrected on my failings in law, however, and not on your failings in history. I did not intend to claim that no figure in American history ever suggested the General Welfare clause grants Congress broad legislative power. I am only saying that Congress has never – apart from their spending power – claimed that any law they passed was justified by the General Welfare clause, nor has any court held that Congress has authority to legislate in a particular area because of the General Welfare clause – again, except insofar as it involved Congress’ choice of what to spend money on. This case involves Congress making something illegal – making it a crime. Congress can only create crimes in areas in which they have the power to legislate – those powers granted to them by the Constitution. States are not limited in the areas they can cover by legislation: states have unqualified, absolute reach in the areas they can cover by legislation – except if those areas belong to Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/36 "2014-05-15T16:23:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s not a terrible question, actually. As far as I can tell, NCLB and the underlying Elementary and Secondary Education Act have never been challenged as a federal overreach. This is probably because nobody has standing to challenge because they don’t harm anyone. If you’re a state, you can’t demonstrate harm because you can refuse Title I funds. If you’re a child or parent, you don’t have taxpayer standing because it’s not an Establishment Clause issue. > > I suspect the ESEA would have been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’ 13th and 14th Amendment powers anyway since its purpose is to ensure “equal” educational opportunities. I heard that a couple of states, in particular Utah were willing to forego the Fed’s money so as not to be under NCLB but then why does every state follows NCLB? I even emailed Utah’s Dept of Education for research I was doing but never got a response. I heard (and in no way even claim it’s true) that they were sued because not abiding by NCLB means a loss of Title I money which would mean Utah was discriminating against minorities but my research found no indication of such a lawsuit. But I’m still wondering how you came up with NCLB as a slavery issue. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/37 "2014-05-15T16:33:45Z")
I was thinking of the standing issue. Like we saw with the Obama birther controversy, the real issue was if there is a Constitutional issue, it does not have to be addressed by the Courts because of the lack of standing of those indirectly affected. So let’s say government funding of education is unconstitutional. Let’s say that some SJD writes a brilliant paper that unquestionably demonstrates that Federal funding of education is unconstitutional. Everyone agrees that there is a general harm because eliminating Federal funding of education would either lower taxes or increase funding for other programs but those that are directly affected by the funding are not only not harmed but actually benefit from the unconstitutional actions. Given those circumstances, who could actually file a suit? Is it a problem that a clearly unConstitutional act is still legal (or rather not illegal) because of lack of standing and blame John Marshall that judicial review is done in the Courts? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/38 "2014-05-15T18:23:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The actual issue of _Missouri v. Holland_ was duck hunting. Congress had enacted a law which restricted duck hunting. Several states protested that there was nothing in the Constitution which gave the federal government the power to regulate hunting so it was a state issue. It reached the Supreme Court and the law was overturned. > > The United States government then approached the British government and the two of them negotiated and approved a treaty which restricted duck hunting in a manner equivalent to what the overturned law had. And while the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to regulate hunting it does give Congress the power to enact treaties. The Supreme Court upheld this principle. And, as an interesting side note, the Parliament of Canada similarly lacks authority to regulate hunting. Except, by virtue of that same treaty, the Migratory Birds Convention, Parliament can enact laws to enforce the treaty, under the similar Canadian treaty power. As a matter of policy, the federal law is mainly used to protect endangered species like whooping cranes, rather than general regulation of duck-hunting. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/39 "2014-05-15T18:25:32Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And, as an interesting side note, the Parliament of Canada similarly lacks authority to regulate hunting. Except, by virtue of that same treaty, the Migratory Birds Convention, Parliament can enact laws to enforce the treaty, under the similar treaty power here. As a matter of policy, the federal law is mainly used to protect endangered species like whooping cranes, rather than general regulation of duck-hunting. And they have other treaties and a constitution saying they cannot enforce that against treaty Natives. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271/40 "2014-05-15T18:46:51Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > But I’m still wondering how you came up with NCLB as a slavery issue. Congress had broad authority to legislate against “badges and incidents of slavery”, one of which is segregation. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Given those circumstances, who could actually file a suit? Is it a problem that a clearly unConstitutional act is still legal (or rather not illegal) because of lack of standing and blame John Marshall that judicial review is done in the Courts? A member of Congress _might_ be able to sue. However, [SCOTUS has already ruled that Congresscritters don’t have standing to challenge their own unconstitutional delegations of power](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/521/811), so I doubt they have standing to challenge their own overreaches. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-you-explain-the-importance-of-the-bond-case-infront-of-scotus/688271.md?page=3)