E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Today the Supreme Court heard argument in Bond v. United States, which raises the question of whether a treaty can confer upon Congress the power to enact implementing legislation that would otherwise exceed its enumerated powers. This decision gives the Justices an opportunity to revisit Missouri v. Holland, in which Justice Holmes made something like this argument. (Paul Clement, arguing for Bond, said that Missouri v. Holland could be distinguished, but that seems implausible.)
In response to questions from the bench about whether a treaty could give Congress a general police power, the Solicitor General said yes in theory but no in practice. Why? Because no President would propose and no Senate would ratify such a treaty. (Basically, this is another version of the "broccoli" hypothetical for the Commerce Clause.) He added that the requirement that two-thirds of the Senate is needed to ratify a treaty provided additional protection for the reserved powers of the States.
I take issue with this last claim. Most binding international agreements nowadays are not subject to the Treaty Clause. Since World War II, they are often framed as congressional-executive agreements. Congressional-executive agreements are ratified just like a statute (you need a majority in Congress and a presidential signature). NAFTA is a recent example. Is the SG saying that treaties are on a higher legal plane than congressional-executive agreements? Maybe that makes sense, but that would be a new distinction.
I believe, though am not certain, that the difference is that treaties are mutually binding (i.e., there are international legal consequences for unilateral withdrawal), while trade agreements and the like have opt-out clauses giving countries the unilateral right to withdraw from the agreement.
(Basically, this is another version of the "broccoli" hypothetical for the Commerce Clause.) He added that the requirement that two-thirds of the Senate is needed to ratify a treaty provided additional protection for the reserved powers of the States.FUT 14 Coins League of Legends boosting
Because no President would propose and no Senate would ratify such a treaty. (Basically, this is another version of the "broccoli" hypothetical for the Commerce Clause.) He added that the requirement that two-thirds of the Senate is needed to ratify a treaty provided additional protection for the reserved powers of the States.lol代练价格 fifa coins Buy Elo Boost buy cheap fifa 15 coins