Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

16 

BOND v. UNITED STATES 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

challenged that prevailing conception by addressing “mat-
ters  that  in  the  past  countries  would  have  addressed 
wholly  domestically”  and  “purport[ing]  to  regulate  the
relationship  between  nations  and  their  own  citizens,”
Bradley  396;  see  also  ante,  at  12  (opinion  of  SCALIA,  J.). 
But  even  the  Solicitor  General  in  this  case  would  not  go
that far; he acknowledges that “there may well be a line to 
be  drawn”  regarding  “whether  the  subject  matter  of  [a] 
treaty  is  a  proper  subject  for  a  treaty.”    Tr.  of  Oral  Arg. 
43:10–15. 

* 

* 

* 
In an appropriate case, I would draw a line that respects
the  original  understanding  of  the  Treaty  Power.    I  ac-
knowledge  that  the  distinction  between  matters  of  in- 
ternational  intercourse  and  matters  of  purely  domestic
regulation may not be obvious in all cases.  But this Court 
has long recognized that the Treaty Power is limited, and
hypothetical  difficulties  in  line-drawing  are  no  reason  to 
ignore a constitutional limit on federal power. 

The  parties  in  this  case  have  not  addressed  the  proper 
scope  of  the  Treaty  Power  or  the  validity  of  the  treaty 
here.  The  preservation  of  limits  on  the  Treaty  Power  is 
nevertheless  a  matter  of  fundamental  constitutional  im-
portance, and the Court ought to address the scope of the
Treaty  Power  when  that  issue  is  presented.    Given  the 
increasing  frequency  with  which  treaties  have  begun  to
test  the  limits  of  the  Treaty  Power,  see  Bradley  402–409, 
that chance will come soon enough.