Digital Commons Network^™

The Bond Court's Institutional Truce, Monica Hakimi

Articles

As many readers are aware, Bond v. United States is a quirky case. The federal government prosecuted under the implementing legislation for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) a betrayed wife who used chemical agents to try to harm her husband’s lover. The wife argued that, as applied to her, the implementing legislation violated the Tenth Amendment. She thus raised difficult questions about the scope of the treaty power and of Congress’s authority to implement treaties through the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Bond Court avoided those questions with a clear statement rule: “we can insist on a clear indication that …

Treaties As Law And The Rule Of Law: The Judicial Power To Compel Domestic Treaty Implementation, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution, federal statutes, and ratified treaties part of the "supreme law of the land." Despite the textual and historical clarity of the Supremacy Clause, some courts and commentators have suggested that the "non-self-executing treaty doctrine" means that ratified treaties must await implementing legislation before they become domestic law. The non-self-executing treaty doctrine has in particular been used as a shield to claims under international human rights treaties.

This Article does not seek to provide another critique of the non-self-executing treaty doctrine in the abstract. Rather, I suggest that a determination that a treaty is non-self-executing …

Treaties And The Separation Of Powers In The United States: A Reassessment After Medellin V. Texas, Ronald A. Brand

Articles

This article considers Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion in the case of Medellin v. Texas. Like much of the commentary on this case, the article considers the international law implications of the opinion and its consideration of the doctrine of self-executing treaties. The primary focus here, however, consistent with the symposium in which this paper was presented, is on the opinion's implications for the separation of powers and for federalism. While the opinion's discussion of international law and treaty implementation can be considered dicta, the separation of powers and federalism portions may be seen as more directly necessary to …

The Power Of The Senate To Amend A Treaty, Bradley M. Thompson

Articles

The recent refusal of the Senate to ratify eight general arbitration treaties which the President had concluded with Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Mexico, and Norway and Sweden, until, against the protest of the President, it had modified them materially by amendment, has called public attention to the treaty-making power, and has raised the question as to whether or not any of that power is vested in the Senate.

The Power Of The Senate To Amend A Treaty, Bradley M. Thompson

Articles

The recent refusal of the Senate to ratify eight general arbitration treaties which the President had concluded with Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Mexico,' and Norway and Sweden, until, against the protest of the President, it had modified them materially by amendment, has called public attention to the treaty-making power, and has raised the question as to whether or not any of that power is vested in the Senate.