. L. Rev. In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14). And treaties with China and Japan, which afforded subjects of those countries the same rights and privileges as citizens of other nations, were understood to pre-empt state laws that discriminated against Chinese and Japanese subjects. No, the true rule is entirely clear: When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that terms ordinary meaning. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 942 (2000) (emphasis added). Bond was prosecuted under section 229, and the statuteunlike the Conventionmust be read consistent with principles of federalism inherent in our constitutional structure. The Government replies that this Court has never held that a statute implementing a valid treaty exceeds Congresss enumerated powers. Other Representatives who participated in the Jay Treaty debates agreed with Hillhouse that the Treaty Power had a limited scope. These treaties entered into under the Articles of Confederation would not have suggested to the Framers that granting a power to make Treaties included authorization to regulate purely domestic matters. Yet no one would ordinarily describe those substances as chemical weapons. The Government responds that because Bond used specialized, highly toxic (though legal) chemicals, this case presents no occasion to address whether Congress intended [section 229] to apply to common household substances. Brief for United States 13, n.3. 3, 1783, 8 Stat. The Federal Government, by contrast, has no such authority and can exercise only the powers granted to it, McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 18. S.-Fr., Arts. 34 (affording burial rights when any subjects or inhabitants of either party shall die in the territory of the other); Treaty with the Cherokee, Art. It has long been settled, for example, that we presume federal statutes do not abrogate state sovereign immunity, Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 243 (1985), impose obligations on the States pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 1617 (1981), or preempt state law, Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). II(2), id., at 320. Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. , Solicitor General, for Respondent. . It is also clear that the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (and every other State) are sufficient to prosecute Bond. No. . Potassium dichromate and 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine might be chemical weapons if used, say, to poison a citys water supply. Chemical weapon is the key term that defines the statutes reach, and it is defined extremely broadly. the laws. The Federalist No. On remand, the Third Circuit rejected her Tenth Amendment argument and her additional argument that section 229 does not reach her conduct. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 123 (1979), it denies due process. . The Treaty Power was not drafted on a blank slate. Somewhere in Norristown, Pennsylvania, a husbands paramour suffered a minor thumb burn at the hands of a betrayed wife. 50, T. S. No. Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, and with whom Justice Alito joins as to Part I, concurring in the judgment. Bond v. United States, No. 17-2150 | Casetext Search + Citator This purpose traces its origin to World War I, when [o]ver a million casualties, up to 100,000 of them fatal, are estimated to have been caused by chemicals . [1][2] Bond was indicted for stealing mail and for violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, and with whom Justice Alito joins as to Parts I, II, and III, concurring in the judgment. Suppose, for example, that the self-aggrandizing Federal Government wishes to take over the law of intestacy. Section 229 cannot be regarded as necessary and proper to carry into execution the treaty power, and accordingly it lies outside Congress reach unless supported by some other power enumerated in the Constitution. . . Adopting in Part II the narrower of the two possible readings, we said that unless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance. Id., at 349 (emphasis added). BOND v. UNITED STATES - LII / Legal Information Institute So we consider that argument first. The Convention aimed to achieve that objective by prohibiting the development, stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons by any State Party or person within a State Partys jurisdiction. But reversing some of this Courts decisions is the least of the problem. See 18 Pa. Cons. Notwithstanding this debate, it is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Courts jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case. Escambia County v. Mc-Millan, 466 U.S. 48, 51 (1984) (per curiam); see also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). 104 (fishery rights in disputed waters); Treaty of Amity and Commerce, U.S.-Prussia, Arts. As a result, in this Court the parties have devoted significant effort to arguing whether section 229, as applied to Bonds offense, is a necessary and proper means of executing the National Governments power to make treaties. This exceptional convergence of factors gives us serious reason to doubt the Governments expansive reading of section 229, and calls for us to interpret the statute more narrowly. [June 16, 2011] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. We expresse[d] no view on the merits of Bonds constitutional challenge. the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power). The case: Bond v. United States is a case that concerned plaintiff Carol Anne Bond who violated Congress' Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Just as we conclude that Bonds offense cannot be fairly described as the use of a chemical weapon, Pennsylvania authorities apparently determined that her crime did not involve a weapon of mass destruction.. 1925) (treaties are made for the sake either of peace or of some alliance, including for the restoration of captives and of captured property, and for safety; that neither signatory shall have fortresses in the territory of the other, or defend the subjects of the other, or furnish a passage to the enemy of the other; and for commercial relations and agreements on import duties (footnote omitted)); 2 S. Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium 1331 (1688 ed., C. Oldfather & W. Oldfather transls. 6 Non-self-executing treaties are treaties whose commitments do not automatically have effect as domestic law, Medelln v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 504 (2008), and can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect, Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888). Those decisions were supported by arguments that migratory birds were owned by the States in their sovereign capacity for the benefit of their people, and that under cases like Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, this control was one that Congress had no Rep. 154. BOND v. UNITED STATES | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal I would hold that it was not, and for that reason would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. No law that flattens the principle of state sovereignty, whether or not necessary, can be said to be proper. As an old, well-known treatise put it, it would not be a proper or constitutional exercise of the treaty-making power to provide that Congress should have a general legislative authority over a subject which has not been given it by the Constitution. 1 W. Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United States 216, p. 504 (1910). . On remand, the Third Circuit found that "because the Convention is an international agreement with a subject matter that lies at the core of the Treaty Power and because Holland instructs that 'there can be no dispute about the validity of [a] statute' that implements a valid treaty, we will affirm Bond's conviction. 2701 (2012) (simple assault), 2705 (reckless endangerment), 2709 (harassment).3 And state authorities regularly enforce these laws in poisoning cases. See, e.g., Bradley, The Treaty Power and American Federalism, 97 Mich. L.Rev. S.-Fr., Arts. BOND V. UNITED STATES - LII / Legal Information Institute Cruz, Ted. after the contract relation has been established . 614615, T.S. No. Bond v Us Flashcards | Quizlet Although Alexander Hamilton undoubtedly believed that the Treaty Power was broad within its proper sphere, see infra, at 8, the view he expressed in essays during the New York ratification campaign is entirely consistent with Madisons. IX, 8 Stat. . S.-Neth., Art. So we consulted (among other things) the general meaning of the term being defined, violent felony. Id., at 140. . In 2006, Bonds closest friend, Myrlinda Haynes, announced that she was pregnant. Bond v. United States, 934 F. Supp. 351 - Casetext United States have to do with? The problem with this interpretation is that it would dramatically intrude[] upon traditional state criminal jurisdiction, and we avoid reading statutes to have such reach in the absence of a clear indication that they do. Bond argued that her conduct, though reprehensible, was not at all warlike. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. 104 (peace); Contract for the Payment of Loans, U. it had exceeded its jurisdiction and infringed upon that of the State? The Federalist No. Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 60 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Pennsylvania Dept. 662 (CA5 2005) (per curiam) (defendant possessed sodium cyanide); United States v. Fries, 2012 WL 689157 (D Ariz., Feb. 28, 2012) (defendant set off a homemade chlorine bomb in the victims driveway, requiring evacuation of a residential neighborhood). [16] The 43-page "Comment" by Heather K. Gerken on the case declared it "a trivial entry in the federalism canon."[17]. But that is only because its result-driven antitextualism befogs what is evident. . The understanding that treaties are limited to, in Madisons words, the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, endured in the years after the Constitution was ratified. PDF Supreme Court of The United States Because the scope of the treaty power cannot regulate "purely domestic affairs," Thomas argued that the US could not join a treaty banning domestic chemical weapons. Just ponder what the Court says: [The Acts] ambiguity derives from the improbably broad reach of the key statutory definition . We would not give the Governments support of the Holland principle the time of day were we confronted with treaty-implementing legislation that abrogated the freedom of speech or some other constitutionally protected individual right. . 12-158. More surprising, they also charged her with two countsof possessing and using a chemical weapon, in violationof section 229(a). An ordinary speaker would not describe Bonds feud-driven act of spreading irritating chemicals as involving a chemical weapon. And the chemicals at issue here bear little resemblance to those whose prohibition was the object of an international Convention. 98-9349. 211217 (1997). There, Anti-Federalists leveled the charge that the Treaty Power gave the Federal Government excessive power. See ibid. For example, the holding that a statute prohibiting the carrying of firearms near schools went beyond Congresss enumerated powers, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 551 (1995), could be reversed by negotiating a treaty with Latvia providing that neither sovereign would permit the carrying of guns near schools. A fair reading of statutes must be certain of the intent of Congress before it finds that federal law overrides the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers. In light of that principle, we are reluctant to conclude that Congress meant to punish Bonds crime with a federal prosecution for a chemical weapons attack. In particular, each State Party shall [p]rohibit natural and legal persons anywhere . . Ibid. 33, at 206. The statute parses itself. Bond v. United States (2000) - Wikiwand The Federalist answers with a rhetorical ques-tion: Suppose by some forced constructions of its authority (which indeed cannot easily be imagined) the Federal Legislature should attempt to vary the law of descent in any State; would it not be evident that . NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. James Madison, who opposed the Jay Treaty as a Representative from Virginia, also took the opportunity to reiterate his view that the Treaty-making power was a limited power. Id., at 777. [5], The Third Circuit, on remand, found that the Supreme Court's decision gave Bond standing to raise federalism questions about the federal government's power to enforce legislation that implements a treaty. Up to the 1990s, however, chemical weapons remained in use both in and out of wartime, with devastating consequences. Held:Section 229 does not reach Bonds simple assault. Bond v. United States | Cato Institute What are we to do? McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. To implement the international Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, Congress enacted the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. Other historical evidence from the postratification period is in accord. Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley. But this Court has long recognized that the Treaty Power is limited, and hypothetical difficulties in line-drawing are no reason to ignore a constitutional limit on federal power. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. See, e.g., 3 Debates on the Federal Constitution 509 (J. Elliot 2d ed. Although we have not had occasion to define the limits of the power in much detail, we have described treaties as dealing in some manner with intercourse between nations. . . VIII, IX. To the contrary, the holding in Holland is consistent with the understanding that treaties are limited to matters of international intercourse.
Common App Sign Up For Teachers,
Locksmith Key Programmer,
Dr Mccurdy Ophthalmologist,
Disadvantages Of Dating A Girl,
Old Folks Playground Caddo Lake,
Articles B