[MARTY RESPONDS: Sorry about the mistaken amici nose-count — page 2a got lost when I first read the brief, and I missed Prof. Woolhandler! As for what I called your apparent “concession”: I don’t really think of it as a question of “delegation” at all, for whatever that’s worth. It’s a rule of decision for U.S. courts to apply (e.g., “Whatever the ‘better’ view of the Vienna Convention might be, the U.S. has separately agreed to be bound by the decisions of the ICJ, which should be implemented by U.S. courts.”), or an “assimilation” of ICJ law into U.S. law, just as state law (Sharpnack) or international “common” or “customary” international law (e.g., Smith, 18 U.S. at 160-62 (piracy); Yamashita; Sosa) is assimilated into federal law and must be ascertained by federal courts. But be that as it may, even if called a “delegation,” it shouldn’t be very problematic if effected by statute, right? (Cf. Currin; Rock Royal.) Accordingly, I read pages 15-18 of your brief as an attempt to convince the Court that the statutes and regulations discussed there were distinguishable from a treaty in a way that made a constitutional difference, i.e., that the Constitution requires (for some reason I still can’t quite fathom) “some additional act of the political branches” (p.15) before the “delegation” or “assimilation” can be valid. If, instead, you meant to suggest that all of the statutes and regs cited on those pages are also constitutionally problematic — or if I’m missing something important in the argument altogether (always a possibility!) — I apologize, and welcome the correction.