Bond v. US and the treaty power
An interesting case. The US entered into a treaty to prohibit the development, etc., of chemical weapons. Congress then enacted a statute prohibiting the possession or use of chemical weapons.
Mrs. Bond discovered her husband was having an affair, and dumped toxic chemicals around the other lady's house and car, which gave her a minor burn. Some overzealous Asst US Attorney prosecuted Bond for violating the anti-chemical weapon statute and she pled out, reserving the right to appeal.
The majority ducks the constitutional issue by holding that the statute can be construed so as to exclude what Bond did.
Three Justices concur in the result, while reaching the constitutional issues:
Justice Scalia argues that the power to "make" treaties, combined with the "necessary and proper clause" does not equal a power to execute treaties by penalizing conduct (unless the statute falls within some other grant of power to Congress). He replies to the objection that that would mean the US could enter a treaty without being able to carry it out with the observation that the Framers set up that way: the President and Senate can always make a treaty, but only the House, Senate, and often President can enact a law.
Justices Thomas and Alito concur in the result, on the grounds that the treaty power is properly limited to international affairs, not to regulation of purely domestic acts.