mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. if the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation as the government insists it clearly exceeds congress's limit -- limited and enumerated powers. this court cases that may clear the bedrock of our system that congress backs the general police power to criminalize conduct without regard to jurisdictional element or some nexus to a matter of deceptive federal concern. the president's negotiation and the senate's ratification of the treaty of a foreign nation does not change that ed rudd danceable of our constitutional system. >> you said that the treaty is valid and the implementing legislation seems to largely copy the words of the treaty without adding anything, so it's a puzzle that the treaty could be constitutional but the implementing legislation that adds nothing is unconstitutional >> justice ginsburg i guess i would quarrel with your premise which is it is true the conventional conventional statute yusem of all terms and term

mr. clement why not? there can be no doubt that chemical weaponry is at the forefront of our foreign-policy efforts right now. look at the serious situation. it would be deeply ironic that we have expended so much energy criticizing syria plan if this course were now -- this court were now to create legislation to implement the treaty was in unconstitutional. putting aside the impact on foreign relations if it's okay to regulate the possession of marijuana for a local crime, why is it unconstitutional to regulate the use of something that can kill or maim another human being, a chemical that could kill or maim a human being? i don't understand where the disconnect is in terms of our federal or state system. >> justice sotomayor i think it gets down to the difference between raache and lopez which this court is held as a classic and rational way to regulate commerce to basically prohibit certain items from congress. >> there is no dispute that these chemicals were transported along interstate lines. that's

mr. clement, you have four minutes remaining. >> the senate's role in the ratification of treaties cannot be a significant that sufficient political check. -- sufficient political check. to take justice scalia's hypothetical example of an international treaty that purported to regulate marriage rights, one thing the senate very well might do in that case is to say, we will ratify it, but make sure it's not self- executing, and then maybe we will use our spending power to get the states on board. we're not going to propose a national solution. it does not make sense to say a nonself executing treaty guarantees the validity of the enacting legislation. respond toint is to the arguments which i think i have already explained why it's not correct, the suggestion that there's is no daylight between the convention and the statute. there is huge daylight, and the daylight is precisely whether it affects individual conduct and how. everything on justice breyer's list a is not stuff that implicates the convention at all, but yet it is the government's unwavering theory that cannot make limitations

mr. clements also acquired the papers of sir henry clinton purchased in 1925, ranked in the states in 1926. one of the interesting components of sir henry clinton papers and which was rather profound is the lengthy set of correspondence and documents pertaining to benedict arnold and his treasonous correspondence with the british headquarters, a letter written in code by benedict arnold, said dictionary substitution code in groups of three and these numbers describe the page number previously determined volume in the line number and a work member of a particular page. once deciphered, this particular manuscript is benedict arnold's conditions for the act of turning over the important post of west point to the british. this sheet is a contemporary translation of the coded document and i'll read a passage from that. if i point out a plan of cooperation by which sir henry shall possess himself of west point, garrison, et cetera, et cetera, cetera, et cetera, 20,000 pounds sterling book we purchased for an object of so much importance. another item from henry clinton's papers is during 1777. t

mrs. bond brought the case to the supreme court challenging her conviction under this federal law and her lawyer, paul clementsically had two arguments today and he did not have an easy time of it. he argued, one, that this federal law if it reaches conduct like mrs. bonds which he said in essence is a domestic dispute it's unconstitutional because it intrudes, interferes with powers that were reserved to the states. if there were no treaty involved here, gwen, mrs. bond probably would have been charged under state law for assault or attempted murder. but he had a backup argument, too. he told the court if they wanted to avoid the constitutional question, they could interpret an exception in the convention and the federal law for the use of chemicals for peaceful purposes which he said really means non-war-like conduct. >> ifill: killing your husband's mistress but not trying to go after a count industry >> absolutely. he snowed one who speaks normal english would see what happened here as deployment of a weapon. >> ifill: how did justices react to that argument? >> there was pushback. some of the justices sa

mr. clements, four minutes remaining. >> a few points in rebuttal. first of all the senate's role in the ratification of treaties cannot be a sufficient political check and the reason is sometimes the precise role they play is to make the treaty nonself executed and to take a justice scalia's idea of an international treaty to regulate marriage rights one thing the senate very well might do in that case is ratified -- or use spending power since states on board. and the nonself executing treaty necessarily even if it is valid guarantees the relatively of the enacting legislation. some of the reason the treaty is nonself executing is to preserve federalists. the second point is to respond to the argument i already explained why is not correct but the suggestion there is no daylight between the convention and the statutes. there is huge delight which is whether it affects individual conduct and how it affects individual conduct. with all respect everything on justice briar's list a is not stuff that implicates the convention at all. under the governmen

mr. clement you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice and just a few points in rebuttal. first of all the senate's role in the ratification of treaties cannot be a sufficient political political -- and one reason is sometimes the precise role they play as a check is to make a treaty nonself-executing so take justice scalia's purported to regulate marriage rights one thing that senate very well might do in that case is to say we will ratify it that will make sure it's nonself-executing end-user spending power to get the states on board but we are not just going to impose a national solution so doesn't make any sense to say in nonself-executing treaty necessarily even if it's valid guarantees the validity of the enacting legislation. some of the reason you make a treaty nonself-executing is to make it federal. second is to respond to the argument which i have far to explain why it's not correct that the suggestion there is no daylight to train the convention and the statute. there is huge daylight in the daylight is precisely

mr. clement --, could this treaty have itself regulated individual conduct?eaty have been self executing? >> that's an interesting question, and i don't think the court needs to answer it. i would take the position that if there really were a self- executing treaty that tried to impose criminal prohibitions -- if there were one, i would say here that it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution? >> there's clearly a treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations. if you go back to the founding history, it's very clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations. james madison and others decided not to impose them. where would you find that limitation in the constitution? limitationfind that in the structural provisions of the constitution and enumerated powers of congress. is an enumerated power. the enumerated power is the treaty power. we have to find a constraint on the treaty power. where does it come from? >> where i would come