1. Are you persuaded by Justice Roberts’s reading of the statutory
language at issue? What factors persuaded the majority that the statutory
language at issue was ambiguous?
2. Are you persuaded by Justice Scalia’s claim that the Necessary and
Proper Clause authorizes legislation related to the making of treaties but
does not authorize legislation for their implementation?
3. In a separate opinion, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Scalia and
Alito, argues that “treaties by their nature relate to intercourse with other
nations (including their people and property) rather than to purely domestic
affairs,” although he concedes that “the distinction between matters of
international intercourse and matters of purely domestic regulation may not
be obvious in all cases.” As an institutional matter, should determining
whether a particular issue is “a proper subject[] of negotiation” be vested
with the courts, or the political branches?
As a substantive matter, would Justice Thomas’s proposed distinction invalidate human rights treaties,
many of which govern the relationship of a state to its own citizens?
4. The Bond majority carefully avoids reaching constitutional questions.
Reading between the lines, is Missouri v. Holland more secure, or less
secure, following the Bond decision?
