The facts underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2 ruling in Bond v. United States are so ridiculous that, unfortunately, every news outlet reporting on the case spent more time describing them than discussing the complex legal issues raised by the opinion. The facts, in two sentences, are: After learning that her husband impregnated her best friend, Bond put chemicals on surfaces that her friend was likely to touch. The pregnant friend avoided most of the chemicals, and suffered only a minor burn to her thumb (remedied by running water). Hidden behind these pathetic facts, however, are critical legal issues involving international and constitutional law and federalism.
Miffed that the local prosecutor did not take the case seriously, a federal prosecutor in Pennsylvania successfully brought charges against Bond for violating the 1998 Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. Congress enacted this statute to enforce domestically the 1997 treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. Such legislation was necessary because there is a presumption that treaties cannot be enforced domestically unless the treaty specifically states so, or Congress enacts implementing legislation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]