The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Are there any constiutional limits on legislation implementing treaties?

KyJim · November 5, 2013, 01:19 PM

That question was addressed today by the Supreme Court in Bond v. U.S. It may be answered or the Court could rule on more narrow grounds. Scotus Blog has an argument recap here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/ar...-at-the-court/

At issue is legislation implementing international treaties on chemical warfare. The government charged the defendant with spreading some poisonous chemicals in places where a friend having an affair with her estranged husband was likely to (and did) touch. A fuller background is here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/ar...old-precedent/.

Not only is this of interest generally, but it is of extreme interest to those of us who view treaties like the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty as potential backdoor methods at greater firearms regulation. I have often seen the comment here that a treaty can't trump the Constitution so there is no reason to fear. First, the government can regulate a great deal without violating the Constitution. Second, there seems to be some real question in the minds of a couple of justices about whether a treaty might, in fact, trump the Constitution.

November 5, 2013, 01:19 PM	#1
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Are there any constiutional limits on legislation implementing treaties? That question was addressed today by the Supreme Court in Bond v. U.S. It may be answered or the Court could rule on more narrow grounds. Scotus Blog has an argument recap here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/ar...-at-the-court/ At issue is legislation implementing international treaties on chemical warfare. The government charged the defendant with spreading some poisonous chemicals in places where a friend having an affair with her estranged husband was likely to (and did) touch. A fuller background is here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/ar...old-precedent/. Not only is this of interest generally, but it is of extreme interest to those of us who view treaties like the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty as potential backdoor methods at greater firearms regulation. I have often seen the comment here that a treaty can't trump the Constitution so there is no reason to fear. First, the government can regulate a great deal without violating the Constitution. Second, there seems to be some real question in the minds of a couple of justices about whether a treaty might, in fact, trump the Constitution.