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

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
179
Abstract Views
2,334
Rank
306,384
PlumX Metrics