FedSoc Blog

Wife Poisoning Husband’s Lover Tests Congress’ Treaty-Making Power at High Court

Avatar

by Publius
Posted November 01, 2013, 10:07 AM

Bloomberg News reports:

What began as attempted revenge for marital infidelity has turned into a U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the power of the federal government.

The high court will hear arguments on Nov. 5 in the case of Carol Anne Bond, a microbiologist who tried to poison her husband’s lover -- and was prosecuted under a U.S. law enacted to implement a chemical-weapons treaty. Bond says her crime is a local one that never should have involved federal prosecutors.

The case poses the most important test of the federal government’s authority since the Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama’s health-care law last year.

“The case is hugely important because it’s about a fundamental principle of constitutional law, which is limited federal power,” said Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Georgetown University Law Center professor.

Bond, a Pennsylvania woman, is challenging a 1920 high court ruling that said Congress can use its constitutional power to implement treaties as a mechanism to regulate local conduct.

The Obama administration, backed by the chemical industry, defends the prosecution and the 1920 ruling. The administration says Bond’s argument would undermine the president’s ability to strike agreements with other countries and cut against a centuries-old understanding of the Constitution’s treaty power.

“In international affairs, the federal government has complete sovereignty and acts on behalf of all the citizens of the nation,” U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in court papers. “And it follows from the national government’s exclusive power to make treaties that it must have the power to ensure treaty compliance.”
Those weighty constitutional questions come to the court through a tale worthy of a soap opera.

Bond was thrilled when she learned in 2006 that her closest friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant. That excitement turned to rage when Bond discovered that her husband, Clifford Bond, was the father.

Bond, who worked for the chemical maker Rohm & Haas Co. outside Philadelphia, then stole a bottle of an arsenic-based substance from her employer. She used the Internet to order a second toxic chemical, potassium dichromate, which is commonly used in printing photographs. Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) bought Rohm & Haas in 2009.

Bond, now 42, tried to poison Haynes 24 times over the next several months, spreading the chemicals on her doorknob, car door handles and mailbox. Although Haynes usually noticed the substances and avoided touching them, on one occasion she suffered a chemical burn on her thumb. Postal inspectors eventually installed surveillance cameras and identified Bond as the perpetrator.

Federal prosecutors then charged her with violating the 1998 Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, a law that carries out a 1997 treaty covering the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. The treaty, which supplements an earlier accord that applies in wartime, was designed in part to protect against the use of chemicals by terrorists.

Bond pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison, while reserving her right to appeal and try to overturn the conviction. Had she been prosecuted under Pennsylvania state law for assault, she would have served no more than two years and one month, according to Paul Clement, the lawyer who will be arguing on her behalf. She was released from prison last year.

Clement, who was solicitor general under President George W. Bush, said in court papers that Bond’s circumstances “are far removed from the United States’ treaty obligations or any issues of national or international importance.” . . .

In October 2013, Professor Rosenkranz gave his analysis of the Bond case at FedSoc's Supreme Court Preview. You can read a recap of his remarks here, and can watch a video of the event here.

Search

Categories

Archives

Originally Speaking Debate Archive

Blog Roll