Seems to largely copy without getting anything so the treaty could be constitutional but implementing legislation adds nothing is constitutional. I would quarrel with your premise. It is through the convention in the statute used similar terms and terminology. Theres one important difference between the convention and the statute that differentiates the case and the difference is convention itself doesnt directly regulate individual conduct at all. And so all the convention tells the States Parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state parties. And then what the legislation does is as Justice Ginsberg said just mirrored the convention as the convention contemplated. Taking quite precise with the convention says and this is article vii section i 33 a of the blue brief appendix what it says is each nation status on the convention agrees in accordance with its constitutional processes to pass penal laws that make unlawful for individuals, conduc