Bond v. United States

  • Aired:  10/07/13
  •  | Views: 60,704

Lawyers argue that the conviction of a woman who spread lethal chemicals on her friend's property is unconstitutional. (1:07)

(LAUGHTER)NATION, IT'S THE FIRST MONDAY IN

OCTOBER, BACK-TO-SCHOOL DAY FORTHE SUPREME COURT.

AND I AM THRILLED BECAUSE THECASES THIS YEAR ARE TO DIE FOR.

FOR INSTANCE, "BOND V. UNITEDSTATES."

IT'S ABOUT A PENNSYLVANIA WOMANNAMED CAROL BOND WHOSE HUSBAND

KNOCKED UP HER BEST DIFFERENT SOBOND SPREAD LETHAL CHEMICALS ON

HER FRIEND'S CAR, MAILBOX, ANDDOORKNOB.

THE DEAD GIVEAWAY WAS THAT ONEOF THE CHEMICALS-- POTASSIUM

DICHROMATE-- IS BRIGHT ORANGE.

IT'S THE REASON WHY NINJASRARELY KILL WITH TRAFFIC CONES.

(LAUGHTER)BUT IT WASN'T THE CRIME THAT GOT

BOND ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREMECOURT.

NO, IT WAS HER DEFENSE.

HER LAWYERS ARGUE THE LAW SHEWAS CONVICTED UNDER IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUNDTHAT IT INFRINGES ON THE POWERS

RESERVED TO THE STATES UNDER THE10th AMENDMENT.

AMEN?

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID CHEMICALWEAPONS ARE A STATE'S RIGHTS

ISSUE.

(LAUGHTER)EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE SHOULD

DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN'TPOISONOUS.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WE IN MY HOMESTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA CONSIDER

A DEADLY TOXIN PEOPLE IN NORTH

Loading...