Bond v. United States: Concurring in the Judgment

Cato Supreme Court Review, pp. 285-306, 2014

23 Pages Posted: 24 Sep 2014

Date Written: 2014

Abstract

Bond v. United States presented the deep constitutional question of whether a treaty can increase the legislative power of Congress. Unfortunately, a majority of the Court managed to sidestep the constitutional issue by dodgy statutory interpretation. But the other three Justices — Scalia, Thomas, and Alito — all wrote important concurrences in the judgment, grappling with the constitutional issues presented. In particular, Justice Scalia’s opinion (joined by Justice Thomas), is a masterpiece, eloquently demonstrating that Missouri v. Holland is wrong and should be overruled: a treaty cannot increase the legislative power of Congress.

Keywords: constitutional law, Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, Congress, statutory interpretation, Supreme Court

JEL Classification: K10, K14, K19, K30, K39

Suggested Citation

Rosenkranz, Nicholas Quinn, Bond v. United States: Concurring in the Judgment (2014). Cato Supreme Court Review, pp. 285-306, 2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2499735

Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz (Contact Author)

Georgetown University Law Center ( email )

600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
106
rank
249,321
Abstract Views
1,259
PlumX Metrics