This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, September 16, 2011.

I'm Keelip Brown.

The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Bond v United States made clear that individuals

can use the 10th Amendment to

repel federal overreach. That nine to nothing ruling may have broader

implications for the legal challenge to Obamacare. John Eastman is a professor and former dean at Chapman University School of Law and a contributor

to the latest Cato Supreme Court review.

We spoke at Cato's annual Constitution Day event yesterday.

Unfortunately, what is the most interesting part of this case is not the most interesting

part of this case when it comes to the discussion that we're having.

And anybody who listens to this podcast will be familiar with

some of the details of this case, a woman trying to poison, suppose a romantic rival and is charged at the state level with a

crime that you would expect one to be charged with and then charged at the

federal level under a law that is enacted

pursuant to a treaty that the United States signed in the 1990s. The issue here just to dispense with those facts is whether or not this

woman could claim that the federal government was overstepping its bounds under the 10th Amendment.

And as an individual, that seems like an odd claim.

So, Carolian Bond was prosecuted for putting some chemicals on her husband's lover's door handle.

But she was prosecuted not by the state officials,

but by the US attorney, the federal official in Pennsylvania

for violating a statute that was implementing

the international treaty against chemical weapons.

...