Opinion ID: 791226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Text, Framer's Intent, and the Indian Treaties

Text: 24 The text of the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution 2 and the extradition statute 3 are silent as to the definition of the term treaty. The power to make treaties is given by the Constitution in general terms, without any description of the objects intended to be embraced by it. . . . Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540, 569, 14 Pet. 540, 10 L.Ed. 579 (1840). Treaties enacted pursuant to Article II receive a presumption of constitutionality. See In re Aircrash in Bali, Indonesia on April 22, 1974, 684 F.2d 1301, 1309 (9th Cir.1982). 25 Wang argues that the United States cannot constitutionally enter into a treaty with a non-sovereign such as Hong Kong. However, there is no credible source that supports the proposition that the Treaty Clause permits only a treaty with a sovereign nation. Indeed, it would be difficult for the Founders to have this thought at the drafting of the Constitution, since, as Wang concedes, non-sovereign entities were not prevalent in 1787. 26 The Second Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of the Hong Kong Extradition Agreement. 4 See Cheung, 213 F.3d 82. The reasoning of the Second Circuit is persuasive: 27 Although the term treaty is commonly understood in modern usage as a contract[ ] between independent nations, the term was not necessarily so limited in the mid-19th century (or now) when the federal extradition statute was enacted. It is true that at the time Congress passed the act, the United States had ratified only two extradition treaties, both with sovereign nations — France and England. However, the United States had also ratified hundreds of treaties with Indian tribes or nations. From the first years of our constitutional republic, the Indian treaties have enjoyed a status on a par with foreign treaties. This has been the case even though Indian treaty partners have been described as domestic dependent nations insofar as they had ceded powers generally associated with sovereignty, including the right freely to carry out foreign relations and trade. 28 Thus, it is clear that the term treaty had a meaning broader than an agreement between fully sovereign or independent entities. 29 Cheung, 213 F.3d at 89-90 (citations omitted). 30 The Supreme Court's treatment of United States treaties with Indian nations, despite an evolving debate about their sovereignty status, 5 as constitutionally valid, see, e.g., United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U.S. 188, 196, 23 L.Ed. 846 (1876), 6 Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172, 204, 119 S.Ct. 1187, 143 L.Ed.2d 270 (1999), 7 strongly suggests that the Treaty Clause does not preclude the United States from entering into treaties with non-sovereigns.