Bond v. United States (2000)
Okay, imagine you have some money and you want to let your friend borrow it. You write down a note that says "I will lend you $10 and you promise to pay me back in a year with an extra dollar for the trouble." Your friend signs the note and now you have a bond.
This is basically what the government does when it needs to borrow money. They issue bonds to people who want to lend them money. Bonds have a fixed term - usually 10 or 30 years - and the government promises to pay back the money with interest at the end of that term.
Now, in 2000, a guy named Gary Lock was charged with carrying an unlicensed firearm in Washington, D.C. He was convicted and sentenced to jail. But he refused to go to jail because he believed that the government was violating his rights.
Specifically, he argued that the government had violated the 10th Amendment, which says that any powers that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give to the federal government belong to the states or the people. Lock believed that the federal government didn't have the power to make it illegal for him to carry a gun, and so his conviction was invalid.
The Supreme Court took up the case and ruled against Lock. They said that the federal government did have the power to regulate firearms under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause gives the federal government the power to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." The Court said that even if Lock's gun had never crossed state lines, the fact that guns are bought and sold across state lines meant that the federal government could regulate them.
So, what does this have to do with bonds? Well, Lock also argued that the federal government didn't have the power to issue bonds. He said that the power to borrow money wasn't explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution, so it belonged to the states.
The Supreme Court disagreed. They said that the power to borrow money was implicit in other powers granted to the federal government, like the power to tax and spend. They also pointed to a clause in the Constitution that says that the federal government can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution... all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." This clause, known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, gives the federal government broad authority to do what it needs to in order to carry out its other powers.
So, in short, the Supreme Court ruled in the Bond v. United States case that the federal government does have the power to issue bonds, even though that power isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. This is because it falls under the federal government's power to tax and spend, and its broad authority to do what it needs to in order to carry out its other powers.
This is basically what the government does when it needs to borrow money. They issue bonds to people who want to lend them money. Bonds have a fixed term - usually 10 or 30 years - and the government promises to pay back the money with interest at the end of that term.
Now, in 2000, a guy named Gary Lock was charged with carrying an unlicensed firearm in Washington, D.C. He was convicted and sentenced to jail. But he refused to go to jail because he believed that the government was violating his rights.
Specifically, he argued that the government had violated the 10th Amendment, which says that any powers that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give to the federal government belong to the states or the people. Lock believed that the federal government didn't have the power to make it illegal for him to carry a gun, and so his conviction was invalid.
The Supreme Court took up the case and ruled against Lock. They said that the federal government did have the power to regulate firearms under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause gives the federal government the power to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." The Court said that even if Lock's gun had never crossed state lines, the fact that guns are bought and sold across state lines meant that the federal government could regulate them.
So, what does this have to do with bonds? Well, Lock also argued that the federal government didn't have the power to issue bonds. He said that the power to borrow money wasn't explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution, so it belonged to the states.
The Supreme Court disagreed. They said that the power to borrow money was implicit in other powers granted to the federal government, like the power to tax and spend. They also pointed to a clause in the Constitution that says that the federal government can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution... all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." This clause, known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, gives the federal government broad authority to do what it needs to in order to carry out its other powers.
So, in short, the Supreme Court ruled in the Bond v. United States case that the federal government does have the power to issue bonds, even though that power isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. This is because it falls under the federal government's power to tax and spend, and its broad authority to do what it needs to in order to carry out its other powers.