I may be missing something, but I think there are really two parts to the question of the supremacy of the Constitution over treaties.
As I see
Bond, the issue is whether a treaty can effectively allow Congress to legislate in areas outside the usual scope of its Article I enumerated powers.
The
Reid issue is whether a treaty can allow legislation impairing constitutionally protected rights.
It's perhaps a subtle distinction. But as stated by Mr. Clement in opening his oral argument on behalf of Bond, the central question is:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr. Clement
...If the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation, as the government insists, then it clearly exceeds Congress's limited and enumerated powers. This Court's cases have made clear that it is a bedrock principle of our federalist system that Congress lacks a general police power to criminalize conduct without regard to a jurisdictional element or some nexus to a matter of distinctly Federal concern.
The President's negotiation and the Senate's ratification of a treaty with a foreign nation does not change that bedrock principle of our constitutional system...
|
I don't see the statute at issue being challenged because it abrogates or violates any personal, protected right. Rather the challenge is based on the defined scope of power of the legislature.
So arguably, even if the Supreme Court finds against Mrs. Bond, the principle set out in
Reid remains valid.