Bond v. United States (12-158)

argument 12-158

Bond v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central constitutional issue in Bond v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:01

You'll hear argument first this morning in case twelve one five eight Bond versus United States.

0:06

Mr.

John G. Roberts 0:07

Clement.

Paul D. Clement 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, 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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 0:47

But Mr Cl Clemente, you said it That the treaty is valid. And the implementing legislation seems to largely copy The words of the treaty without Adding anything. So it's a puzzle that the treaty could be constitutional but the implementing legislation That adds nothing. Um It's unconstitutional.

Paul D. Clement 1:19

Well, Justice Ginsburg, I guess I would quarrel with your premise, which is it is true that the Convention and the Statute use similar terms and terminology, but there's one very important difference between the Convention and the Statute, and that actually differentiates this case from Missouri against Holland. And that difference is that the Convention itself doesn't directly regulate individual conduct at all. And so all the convention does

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:44

but the convention tells the state parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way that this convention regulates state parties. And then what the legislation does is, as Justice Ginsberg said, just mirror the Convention uh as the Convention contemplated.

Paul D. Clement 2:03

Well, Justice Kagan, to be quite precise though, what the Convention says, and this is Article 7, Section 1, 33A of the Blue Brief appendix, what it says is that each nation-state that signs the Convention agrees, in accordance with its constitutional processes, to pass penal laws that make unlawful for individuals conduct that would violate the Convention if undertaken by a nation-state. And I would respectfully suggest that making that translation, if you will, between what violates the Convention if you're a nation state and what would viol what would be comparable individual conduct is not obvious. And when the government does that through penal legislation, there's no reason why that penal legislation shouldn't have to complete as we promised with our constitution.

Elena Kagan 2:47

Mr Clement, why not? Meaning There there can be no doubt. the chemical weapon tree. is at the forefront of our foreign policy efforts right now. Look at the Syria situation alone. It would be deeply ironic. that we have expended so much energy criticizing Syria. when if this court were now to declare that our joining or creating legislation to implement the treaty was unconstitutional, but putting aside the impact that we could have on foreign relations. Um Why is it if it's okay To regulate The possession of marijuana. A purely local crime. Why is it unconstitutional. to regulate the use of something that can kill and or maim another human being, a chemical that can kill or maim another human being. Well I thought I I I I don't understand where the disconnect is.

Elena Kagan 3:52

in terms of our federal or state system.

Paul D. Clement 3:56

Well just to sort of my or I think it really gets down to the difference between Reich on the one hand and Lopez on the other, which is this court has held that it is a classic and rational way to regulate commerce to basically prohibit certain items from commerce.

Elena Kagan 4:09

So why isn't the same? There's no dispute that these chemicals were transported against in uh along interstate lines. Well, I mean I I uh that's not even disputed in this case.

Paul D. Clement 4:21

But I don't think it was really disputed in Lopez that the firearm would have had to cross state lines. But the problem in Lopez was the Federal statute was not structured in a way that had a jurisdictional nexus that made the statute only applicable as a regulation.