Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/12-158_6579.pdf
Page Number: 52.0

Cite as:  572 U. S. ____ (2014) 

11 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

compose and adjust differences, whether to terminate or to 
prevent  war.    2.  To  form  contracts  for  mutual  security  or
defence; or to make Treaties, offensive or defensive.  3. To 
regulate  an  intercourse  for  mutual  benefit,  or  to  form
Treaties of commerce”).  James Madison, who opposed the
Jay  Treaty  as  a  Representative  from  Virginia,  also  took 
the  opportunity  to  reiterate  his  view  that  “the  Treaty-
making power was a limited power.”  Id., at 777. 

Other historical evidence from the postratification period
is  in  accord.  For  example,  Thomas  Jefferson’s  Senate 
Manual of Parliamentary Procedure, drafted while he was
Vice  President  and  therefore  president  of  the  Senate, 
Bradley 415, noted the need for a treaty to have a nexus to 
international intercourse.  If a treaty did not “concern the
foreign  nation,  party  to  the  contract,”  then  “it  would  be  a 
mere  nullity  res  inter  alias  acta.”  Thomas  Jefferson’s 
Senate  Manual  (1801),  in  9  The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jef-
ferson  80–81  (H.  Washington  ed.  1861).    Later,  Justice 
Story  likewise  anchored  the  Treaty  Power  in  intercourse
between nations.  J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitu-
tion  of  the  United  States  552–553  (abr.  ed.  1833).  (“The 
power ‘to make treaties’ is by the constitution general; and 
of course it embraces all sorts of treaties, for peace or war; 
for  commerce  or  territory;  for  alliance  or  succours;  for 
indemnity for injuries or payment of debts; for the recogni-
tion or enforcement of principles of public law; and for any 
other purposes, which the policy or interests of independ-
ent  sovereigns  may  dictate  in  their  intercourse  with  each
other”).

The touchstone of all of these views was that the Treaty 
Power  is  limited  to  matters  of  international  intercourse. 
Even  if  a  treaty  may  reach  some  local  matters,1  it  still 

—————— 

1 This  point  remains  disputed.    Compare  Bradley  456  (contending 
that treaties should be subject “to the same federalism restrictions that