Petitioner also testified that Agent Cantu "reached for my bag, and he shook it a little, and squeezed it." To quote Frankfurter again, if the Federal Government would " 'radically readjust[ ] the balance of state and national authority, those charged with the duty of legislating [must be] reasonably explicit' " about it. We held that, in a proper case, an individual may "assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines." The principle of law, if you’re looking to common law the principle is that you’d have no expectation that anybody… if it’s placed in a shared and common location, where the custom is that other people handle it, then you would have no cause of action if somebody else handled it, and you’d have no–. We conclude that, in this curious case, we can insist on a clear indication that Congress meant to reach purely local crimes, before interpreting the statute's expansive language in a way that intrudes on the police power of the States. Ibid. "Toxic Chemical," in turn, is defined as "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. There the defined term was "violent felony," which the Act defined as an offense that " 'has as an element the use . So if the fellow passenger intentionally threw it the ground and the brick fell out, the fellow passenger would be liable for his imprisonment? That description is difficult to square with a view of the Treaty Power that would allow the Federal Government to prescribe rules over all aspects of domestic life. Tr. But that general definition does not constitute a clear statement that Congress meant the statute to reach local criminal conduct. Well, if a fellow passenger got up and jarred Bond’s bag, such that the brick fell out, I don’t think the fellow passenger would be liable for damages for his imprisonment. See ibid. But see Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §302, Comment c ("Contrary to what was once suggested, the Constitution does not require that an international agreement deal only with 'matters of international concern' "). Do you have some authority for that proposition? §229F(1)(A). I’m not sure that’s an injury that he would have a right to expect that would not occur. It would also lodge in the Federal Government the potential for "a 'police power' over all aspects of American life." Today that objective is reflected in the international Convention on Chemical Weapons, which has been ratified or acceded to by 190 countries. that the treaty power can be exercised without limit to affect matters which are of purely domestic concern and do not pertain to our relations with other nations"), vacated as moot, 355 U. S. 64 (1957) (per curiam). 609, p. 41, the Solicitor General expressly reserved the question "[w]hether a treaty . ." I don’t think the purpose is irrelevant to the extent–. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. No one should have to ponder the totality of the circumstances in order to determine whether his conduct is a felony. L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law §4-4, pp. 2. if you think I’m wrong there, I… you know, I’ll stand corrected, but I think it’s something more than just personal subjectivity here. . 9. But this is exactly what the agent did here. Const., Art. I therefore find it necessary to reach the question whether this statute represents a constitutional exercise of federal power, and as the case comes to us, the only possible source of federal power to be considered is the treaty power. As James Madison explained, the constitutional process in our "compound republic" keeps power "divided between two distinct governments." In settling on a fair reading of a statute, it is not unusual to consider the ordinary meaning of a defined term, particularly when there is dissonance between that ordinary meaning and the reach of the definition. –In deciding reasonable expectations of privacy I think this Court looks at myriad factors, not just one or two, and in the garbage–. The understanding that treaties are limited to, in Madison's words, "the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations," endured in the years after the Constitution was ratified. Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (Bond I) (slip op., at 8). But Mr. Lamken, what is in the record is that this was not pushing, shoving, that this was deliberate manipulation, and that’s a distinction that you don’t deal with when you say, well, passengers could grab, passengers could shove. Brief in Opposition 27, n. 5. But that’s where Bostick comes in, and it seems to me that case is against you. Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, just like states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law. Placing a bag in the overhead rack of a public conveyance like a bus necessarily subjects it to touching and handling by other members of the traveling public who may need to move or push on the luggage to make room for additional bags, to retrieve previously stowed bags, or–.