Bond, Carol Bond.

There is a crazy case before the Supreme Court that looks like a tiny, technical legal point that has large implications for the average citizen. It is Bond v. U.S..

Carol Bond of Landsdale , Pa. admits that she spread a toxic chemical she had obtained from her employer on the car and mailbox of a friend who had an affair with her husband. She was unsuccessful in harming the woman despite clearly intending to do so. This sounds like a straightforward state criminal case, right? But no. The federal government intervened and charged her with waging chemical warfare. According to the Feds, Carol Bond had violated the chemical-weapons convention that the Senate ratified in 1997. And she was convicted.

Mrs. Bond was convicted of waging chemical warfare.

Mrs. Bond is challenging her conviction on the grounds that the chemical treaty in 1998 was aimed at national and international behavior, not individuals and states, and that treaties have no application on an individual or state level. In essence this is an argument between the reach of treaties vs. the sanctity of the state, internationalism versus federalism.

Think Brussels legislating fertilizer use in Great Britain, as occurs under the EU; people in foreign countries you never voted for--indeed never heard of--writing laws to affect your life. And the legal structure of the United States is very individual friendly. It is difficult for the federal busybody to legislate what they think is good for you against your will.

But it is a lot easier for the federal government to influence you if they make the law with a disinterested foreign power and then apply it to the hapless citizen as a treaty obligation. One would think that the Americans would rise up at this. But, with the apparent acquiescence of the citizen to accept federal control of his health, perhaps the nation is changing.