I think that if a state (i.e. country) signs a treaty, then they should enforce that treaty as unified state law. I don’t see a Tenth Amendment issue. I think the Tenth Amendment has no bearing on Congress’s ability to legislate in furtherance of the Treaty Power in Article II, § 2 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority to enact treaty-implementing legislation under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the fact that they have chosen to codify the Chemical Weapons Convention does not pose a threat to national sovereignty or the principles of federalism. In my opinion, I believe the Supreme Court should honor the notion of stare decisis and uphold Missouri v. Holland.

At first, I laughed when I read that Bond argues she used the chemicals for a “peaceful purpose.” But looking at the lower court’s opinion, her argument does not seem to be substantive, but rather procedural. From a substantive stand point, there is no logical way that Bond can argue she attempted to use the weapons “peacefully.” In terms of jurisdiction however, her argument makes slightly more sense. As the lower court noted: “Bond argues that, by looking to the ‘peaceful purpose’ exception, we can employ a ‘common sense interpretation of § 229’ that avoids ‘mak[ing] every malicious use of a household chemical’ — including her own — a federal offense. All we need do is ‘interpret the statute . . . to reach [only the kind of acts] that would violate the Convention if undertaken by a signatory state.’ In other words, as Bond sees it, the modifier ‘peaceful’ should be understood in contradistinction to ‘warlike,’ and, when so understood, the statute will not reach ‘conduct that no signatory state could possibly engage in — such as using chemicals in an effort to poison a romantic rival,’ as Bond did.” Under this logic, her “peaceful purpose” argument makes some sense, because the Convention