Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T02:28:39.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solicitor General’s Brief in Bond v. United States Defends Missouri v. Holland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 912 - 913
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

8 See Crook, John R., Contemporary Practice of the United States, 104 AJIL 271, 278 (2010)Google Scholar; 105 AJIL 775, 782 (2011); 107 AJIL 431,432 (2013).

9 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).

10 See Ronald J. Bettauer, Supreme Court May Consider How Broadly the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution Authorizes Legislation to Implement Treaties, ASIL Insights (Mar. 11, 2013), at http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/17/issue/9/supreme-court-may-consider-how-broadly-%E2%80%9Cnecessary-and-proper%E2%80%9D-clause.

11 Brief for the United States at 8–10, Bond v. United States, No. 12-158 (U.S. Aug. 2013), available at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v2/12-158_resp.authcheckdam.pdf.