Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

8 

BOND v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

omitted).

The  Third  Circuit  also  rejected  Bond’s  constitutional 
challenge  to  her  conviction,  holding  that  section  229  was
“necessary and proper to carry the Convention into effect.” 
Id.,  at  162.    The  Court  of  Appeals  relied  on  this  Court’s 
opinion  in  Missouri  v.  Holland,  252  U. S.  416  (1920), 
which  stated  that  “[i]f  the  treaty  is  valid  there  can  be  no
dispute about the validity of the statute” that implements 
it “as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers 
of the Government,” id., at 432. 

We again granted certiorari, 568 U. S. ___ (2013). 

II 
In  our  federal  system,  the  National  Government  pos-
sesses  only  limited  powers;  the  States  and  the  people
retain the remainder.  The States have broad authority to
enact  legislation  for  the  public  good—what  we  have  often 
called a “police power.”  United  States v.  Lopez, 514 U. S. 
549,  567  (1995).    The  Federal  Government,  by  contrast, 
has  no  such  authority  and  “can  exercise  only  the  powers
granted to it,” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 
(1819), including the power to make “all Laws which shall
be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  Execution”  the 
enumerated  powers,  U. S.  Const.,  Art. I,  §8,  cl.  18.    For 
nearly  two  centuries  it  has  been  “clear”  that,  lacking  a 
police power, “Congress cannot punish felonies generally.” 
Cohens v.  Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 428 (1821).  A criminal 
act  committed  wholly  within  a  State  “cannot  be  made  an
offence  against  the  United  States,  unless  it  have  some
relation to the execution of a power of Congress, or to some 
matter  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.” 
United States v. Fox, 95 U. S. 670, 672 (1878).

The  Government  frequently  defends  federal  criminal
legislation on the ground that the legislation is authorized 
pursuant  to  Congress’s  power  to  regulate  interstate  com-
merce.  In  this  case,  however,  the  Court  of  Appeals  held