Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bond Petition

Bond Petition

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6 |Likes:
Published by Erin Fuchs

More info:

Published by: Erin Fuchs on Jan 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
N
O
.
 
 ______ 
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
 ________________ 
 
CAROL
 
 ANNE
 
BOND,
 
P
ETITIONER
,v.UNITED
 
STATES
 
OF
 
 AMERICA,R
ESPONDENT
.
 ________________ 
 
On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
 ________________ 
 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 ________________ 
 
 A 
SHLEY 
C.
 
P
 ARRISH
  A 
DAM
M.
 
C
ONRAD
 KING & SPALDING LLP1700 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, DC 20006(202) 737-0500R
OBERT
E.
 
G
OLDMAN
 ROBERT E. GOLDMAN LLCP.O. Box 239Fountainville, PA 18923(215)
 
348-2605
 
P
 AUL
D.
 
C
LEMENT
 
Counsel of Record
 E
RIN
E.
 
M
URPHY 
 BANCROFT PLLC1919 M St., NW, Suite 470Washington, DC 20036pclement@bancroftpllc.com(202) 234-0090
Counsel for Petitioner
 August 1, 2012
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Two years ago, this Court held that petitionerhad standing to challenge her criminal conviction as aviolation of the Constitution’s structural limits onfederal authority.
See Bond v. United States
, 131 S.Ct. 2355 (2011). The Court rejected the argumentthat Congress’ reliance on the treaty power somehowdefeated petitioner’s standing. On remand, however,the court of appeals held that, while petitioner hadstanding, her constitutional challenge was a non-starter because the basic limits on the federalgovernment’s power are not “applicable” to statutespurporting to implement a valid treaty. App. 36 n.21. Although it had grave misgivings about its decision,the Third Circuit viewed this startling result ascompelled by dictum in
Missouri v. Holland
, whichstates that “if [a] treaty is valid there can be nodispute about the validity of the statute[implementing that treaty] under Article 1, Section 8,as a necessary and proper means to execute thepowers of the Government.” 252 U.S. 416, 432 (1920).The court thus broadly construed
Holland
as allowingthe Senate and the President to expand the federalgovernment’s constitutional authority by negotiatinga valid treaty requiring implementing legislationotherwise in excess of Congress’ enumerated powers.The questions presented are:Do the Constitution’s structural limits on federalauthority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implementa valid treaty, at least in circumstances where thefederal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scopeof the treaty, intrudes on traditional state
 
iiprerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfythe government’s treaty obligations?Can the provisions of the Chemical WeaponsConvention Implementation Act, codified at 18 U.S.C.§ 229, be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoningcases, which have been adequately handled by stateand local authorities since the Framing, in order toavoid the difficult constitutional questions involvingthe scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’sdecision in
Missouri v. Holland
?

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->