Bond v. United States and Congress's Role in Implementing Treaties
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4743528 |
|---|---|
| Authors | William S Dodge (0000-0001-6320-7816, University of California Hastings College of the Law, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 108 |
| Pages | 86-88 |
| Publication date | 2014-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | AJIL Unbound (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2398-7723 • E-ISSN: 2398-7723 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s2398772300001914 |
| OpenAlex | W3166208794 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 1 |
Bond v. United States had long been anticipated as the case in which the Supreme Court would revisit Missouri v. Holland (1920) and limit Congress's authority to implement treaties. In the event, the Court did nothing of the kind. Only three Justices would have recognized judicially enforceable limits on the Treaty Power (Thomas, joined by Scalia and Alito, concurring in the judgment), and only two would have adopted the crabbed reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause advocated by Professor Nicholas Rosenkranz (Scalia, joined by Thomas, concurring in the judgment
Dormant Commerce Clause · Federal court · Nothing · Political science · Supreme court · Treaty · International Law and Aviation · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,08 |
| Citation span | 2014 - 2014 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |