• About
  • Contact
  • Staff

Law & Liberty

A Project of Liberty Fund

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Liberty Law Forum
  • Podcasts
  • Book Reviews

June 10, 2014|Bond, Federalism, The Treaty Power

Federalism and the Treaty Power: The Scope of the Treaty Power

by Mike Rappaport|1 Comment

Last week the Supreme Court decided Bond v. US, which raised the issue whether a federal statute, justified as an attempt to give effect to a treay, could reach local behavior. While the Court held that the statute did not reach the local conduct based on the federalism canon of statutory contruction, I am interested in the related constitutional issues. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all believed that the statute reached the local conduct and therefore discussed the constitutional issues.

There are two basic questions raised by these justices’ discussion: (1) Whether it is constitutional for a treaty to be made that does not involve international issues, but only domestic matters?; (2) Whether it is constitution for a statute to be passed that exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers and therefore can only be justified as necessary and proper to the Treaty Power?

In the decision, Justices Scalia and Thomas both answered no as to both issues. Justice Alito answered no as to issue 1, saying nothing about issue 2. I thought I would briefly discuss each of these issues. In this post, I discuss the first issue: The Scope of the Treaty Power. (I should note that I am not an expert in this area and therefore my remarks here should be taken as preliminary.)

What is the scope of the treaty power? What subjects can it address? There are three leading positions:

The Treaty Power is limited by the enumerated powers of the federal government.

The Treaty Power is limited by the traditional subjects of treaties – that is, international matters.

The Treaty Power is essentially unlimited, extending to any subject the US and another country want to enter into a treaty about.

The first theory – that the Treaty Power is limited by the enumerated powers – I do not find textually plausible. Certainly, the Treaty Power is not expressly limited by the enumerated powers. Nor do the enumerated powers suggest that they limit the Treaty Power. For example, the Constitution says that “Congress” has the power to regulate interstate commerce. It does not apply to the President and the Senate when making treaties.

The third theory – that the Treaty Power is essentially unlimited – also seems problematic. It seems unlikely that the constitutional enactors, having placed significant limits on the remainder of the federal government, would have allowed the President and the Senate to avoid any restrictions on their agreements – agreements which would the supreme law of the land.

I have therefore long been attracted to the second theory. The textual limitation on treaties – to those that have been the traditional subject of treaties – derives the federalism limit in a textually plausible way. Moreover, Justice Thomas’s opinion provides significant evidence that people at the time interpreted the Treaty Power in this way. It is true that this interpretation would allow the President and the Senate to extend into the area of state powers more than the Congress can under its enumerated powers, but there was a check on the Treaty Power. The Senate had to ratify the Treaty by a two thirds vote and the Senate at the time was elected by the state legislatures and therefore was seen as representing the states.

One significant question is how one draws the line as to international matters. In the modern world, other countries genuinely appear to be concerned about how a country treats its own citizens. Why treat that as not being a matter of international concern? For one, if one treated that as a matter of international concern, then that limitation would no longer be a real limitation. The second category would largely collapse into the third category. For another, there is some reason to believe that people at the time would not have interpreted the provision in that way. Someone might argue that at the time of the Constitution, the US was benefited by other countries giving their own citizens freedom. George Washington’s farewell speech might be seen as supporting that view. Yet, the better interpretation of the materials supplied by Thomas is that such a treaty would not have been viewed as involving a matter of international concern.

Of course, if there were some treaties of that sort, that would count against this interpretation. And if there were many treaties of that sort, that would provide strong evidence against the interpretation.

Mike Rappaport

Professor Rappaport is Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism. Professor Rappaport is the author of numerous law review articles in journals such as the Yale Law Journal, the Virginia Law Review, the Georgetown Law Review, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. His book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, which is co-authored with John McGinnis, was published by the Harvard University Press in 2013.  Professor Rappaport is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he received a JD and a DCL (Law and Political Theory).

About the Author

Ukraine Calls Putin’s Bluff
A Closing Window

Recent Popular Posts

  • Popular
  • Today Week Month All
  • The Vices of A Higher Loyalty April 23, 2018
  • Reading the State of Britain with Roger Scruton April 19, 2018
  • Founding Financial Father April 23, 2018
  • Gorsuch's Originalist Exploration of the Legal Meaning of Due Process April 23, 2018
  • The Constitution and Executive Privilege July 12, 2012
Ajax spinner

Related Posts

Related

Comments

  1. gabe says

    June 10, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Explain how this does NOT limit the President and the Treaty Power:

    “For example, the Constitution says that “Congress” has the power to regulate interstate commerce. It does not apply to the President and the Senate when making treaties.”

    It seems pretty clear that the intent AND the text is that ONLY Congress shall regulate interstate commerce. The president and the Senate by implication of the text must “butt out.” What’s more, the fact that the Senate is involved in treaties has more to do with the belief that the States would protect their own interests not that this is a bypass for the Senate (and the States) to assume the constitutional role of the Congress. At the time, the Framers / debaters were more concerned that the Federal government would negotiate a treaty with Spain that would close off navigation rights to the Mississippi and thus the Senate (the States’ “Diplomats) could negate any such attempt. It does not mean that the Senate was given any extra-constitutional power – nor does it mean that the Executive may enter into a treaty with a foreign nation that would limit the BOR, for example – or perhaps, usurp State police powers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Book Reviews

The Ford Restoration

by Kirk Emmert

Occupying the White House in unfavorable circumstances can make a President fall back on his best friend: the U.S. Constitution.

Read More

John C. Calhoun, Madisonian Manqué

by Thomas W. Merrill

His institutional innovations were geared toward preserving slavery.

Read More

Podcasts

The Solid Ground of Mere Civility: A Conversation with Teresa Bejan

A discussion with Teresa M. Bejan

Teresa Bejan discusses with us how early modern debates over religious toleration are an example of how we can disagree well.

Read More

Leading a Worthy Life in a Scattered Time: A Conversation with Leon Kass

A discussion with Leon Kass

Leon Kass discusses Leading a Worthy Life.

Read More

Eric Voegelin Studies: A Conversation with Charles Embry

A discussion with Charles Embry

What did “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!” really mean? An intro podcast on the formidable mind of Eric Voegelin.

Read More

Republican Virtue, Interrupted: A Conversation with Frank Buckley

A discussion with F.H. Buckley

The real conflict in our politics centers on reforming massive levels of public corruption.

Read More

Recent Posts

  • Rethinking U.S. Nuclear Strategy

    Defending the entire free world requires a robust nuclear posture.
    by Matthew Kroenig

  • Pope Francis’s Mess

    Pope Francis has succeeded in making a mess for his Church.
    by Paul Seaton

  • Trump’s Travel Ban and the Constitution

    If the Supreme Court were to accept the plaintiffs' logic in Trump v. Hawaii, the judicial branch will gain new powers over defense policy.
    by Thomas Ascik

  • Gorsuch’s Originalist Exploration of the Legal Meaning of Due Process

    An originalist approach to due process can take several forms, and Justice Gorsuch's "surprise" decision in Dimaya v. Sessions reinforces this.
    by John O. McGinnis

  • The Vices of A Higher Loyalty

    James Comey's memoir A Higher Loyalty signals virtue better than most high-profile memoirs, but gives us greater insight into his vices.
    by Charlotte Allen

Blogroll

  • Acton PowerBlog
  • Cafe Hayek
  • Cato@Liberty
  • Claremont
  • Congress Shall Make No Law
  • EconLog
  • Fed Soc Blog
  • First Things
  • Hoover
  • ISI First Principles Journal
  • Legal Theory Blog
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Pacific Legal Liberty Blog
  • Point of Law
  • Power Line
  • Professor Bainbridge
  • Ricochet
  • Right Reason
  • Spengler
  • The American
  • The Beacon Blog
  • The Foundry
  • The Originalism Blog
  • The Public Discourse
  • University Bookman
  • Via Meadia
  • Volokh

Archives

  • All Posts & Publications
  • Book Reviews
  • Liberty Forum
  • Liberty Law Blog
  • Liberty Law Talk

About

Law and Liberty’s focus is on the content, status, and development of law in the context of republican and limited government and the ways that liberty and law and law and liberty mutually reinforce the other. This site brings together serious debate, commentary, essays, book reviews, interviews, and educational material in a commitment to the first principles of law in a free society. Law and Liberty considers a range of foundational and contemporary legal issues, legal philosophy, and pedagogy.

  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Contact
  • Archive

Apple App Store
Google Play Store

© 2018 Liberty Fund, Inc.

Subscribe
Get Law and Liberty's latest content delivered to you daily
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
No thanks