[KyJim]

Off topic:

In another matter, a federal prosecutor has charged a woman with violation of the chemical weapons convention. Methinks this was a stretch by an overzealous prosecutor. In any event, SCOTUS may have something to say about another treaty that became US law.

No, this is not off topic. It is the very oral argument I linked to at Scotus Blog.

Here are a few lines from the oral argument recap to illustrate:

The case, on one level, is only about the power of federal prosecutors to make a federal criminal case out of a woman’s attempt to get revenge on her husband’s lover by trying to poison her, but on another level it is about whether the Constitution puts any limits at all on what the President and Congress can do under the Constitution’s treaty power. The woman, Carol Anne Bond, was convicted of violating a law that was passed by Congress to carry out a global treaty against the spread of chemical weapons. . . .

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., repeatedly questioned the Solicitor General about whether there is any constitutional limit on Congress’s power to enter treaties or implement them, and whether a treaty could give Congress the authority to claim ”national police powers.” Verrilli answered that it would be ”unimaginable that the Senate would ratify” such a treaty.

But that answer prompted Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to say: “It seems unimaginable that you did bring this prosecution (of Carol Bond).”

Emphasis added.