Radiolab Episode Summary

Episode: "Sex, Ducks, and The Founding Feud"

Release Date: December 19, 2013
Hosts: Robert Krulwich & Jad Abumrad
Contributors: Kelsey Padgett, Duncan Hollis, Nick Rosenkranz, Joseph J. Ellis, John Bellinger

Overview

This Radiolab episode dives into a seemingly strange legal case—Carol Anne Bond, a Pennsylvania woman prosecuted under an international chemical weapons treaty for a personal crime. The story launches an exploration of American federalism, constitutional debate, the scope of federal and state power, and how international treaties interact with US law. The episode cleverly tracks the historical "founding feud" surrounding the balance of state and federal authority, all while peppered with sharp wit and characteristically engaging sound.

Key Segments & Discussion Points

1. The Strange Case of Carol Anne Bond (00:44 – 05:48)

• Carol Anne Bond discovers her husband is having an affair with her best friend, Merlinda Haynes, who is pregnant by him.
• Enraged, Bond, a microbiologist, steals and buys toxic chemicals and attempts (unsuccessfully) to poison Haynes 24 times over half a year, leaving visible chemicals on doorknobs and car handles.
• Local police ignore Haynes’ repeated complaints until the postal service intervenes (she also put toxins on a mailbox), setting up a camera that catches Bond in the act.

“If there’s a moral to the story, it is do not mess with the mails. They take that very seriously.”
— Nick Rosenkranz [03:43]

• Despite the victim sustaining only minor injuries (a burned thumb), Bond faces federal charges—a violation of the international Chemical Weapons Treaty, not just local criminal charges.

2. Legal and Constitutional Oddities (05:48 – 06:46)

• This prosecution instantly raises questions.
  • Is it appropriate (or constitutional) for such a local crime to be prosecuted under international law?
  • The law in question criminalizes the use of a “toxic chemical for other than a peaceful purpose.”
• Bond’s defense: This is a state (not federal/international) matter, and such application overreaches federal power, circumventing the Constitution’s limits.

“When I poison someone, the last thing I’m thinking about is violating an international treaty.”
— Kelsey Padgett [04:40]

3. The Founding Feud: Who’s in Charge? (06:12 – 11:44)

• Historian Joseph J. Ellis breaks down how federal vs. state power has always been ambiguous and hotly contested.
  • At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, figures like Hamilton and Jefferson vigorously disagreed: Hamilton advocated for a powerful central government, Jefferson for maximizing states’ rights.
  • James Madison realizes that ambiguity—the Constitution as a framework for argument, not a set of answers—was the solution:

“The Constitution isn’t a set of answers. It’s a framework for argument.”
— Joseph J. Ellis [11:17]

• This foundational vagueness explains the recurring states’ rights debates and legal battles that persist today.

4. Ducks, Treaties, and Supreme Court Precedent (12:54 – 16:40)

• Enter the famous Missouri v. Holland (1920) case:
  • Missouri’s Attorney General, Frank McAllister, is arrested for shooting ducks by a federal game warden, even though state law permitted it.
  • The federal government used an international treaty with Canada about bird migration to create national bird protection laws that states had to follow.
  • Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes upholds the treaty’s power, declaring treaties “supreme law of the land,” enabling broad federal reach.

“[Holmes] actually invokes the language of the Civil War… saying we spent all this sweat and blood to figure out what kind of nation we were going to become—for birds.”
— Duncan Hollis [16:06]

• This case justifies using the chemical weapons treaty against Bond.

5. The Slippery Slope and Modern Debate (16:40 – 20:32)

• Critics, notably Nick Rosenkranz, warn: If treaties can justify any federal law, the scope of the federal government could become “potentially infinite.”
  • Hypothetical: What if a treaty banned homeschooling, a local issue?
• John Bellinger counters that while this scenario is theoretically possible, it hasn’t happened and cutting back on treaty power could threaten international cooperation.

“Why would any other country want to make a treaty with us if Kansas could back out at any time?”
— John Bellinger [18:40]

• The debate illustrates ongoing friction: global challenges (e.g., environmental, criminal, or technological) often require unified action, but local autonomy and variation have advantages, like “laboratories of democracy.”

6. Resolution & Human Coda (20:32 – 21:20)

• Carol Anne Bond served six years in jail but stayed with her husband after release.
• The victim, Merlinda Haynes, changed her name and vanished from public records.
• Kelsey Padgett reflects wryly on human complexity:

“Law is interesting, but love, that’s complicated. Love is greater than treaties.”
— Kelsey Padgett [21:11]

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “It just seems—seems too big for the little lady.”
  — Kelsey Padgett [05:23]
• “The Constitution isn’t a set of answers. It’s a framework for argument.”
  — Joseph J. Ellis [11:17]
• “This decision seems to say the federal government’s power is potentially infinite.”
  — Nick Rosenkranz [17:30]
• “Competition—this, the idea of laboratories of democracy... maybe some state will hit on something brilliant.”
  — Nick Rosenkranz [19:53]
• “Law is interesting, but love, that’s complicated. Love is greater than treaties.”
  — Kelsey Padgett [21:11]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Story Introduction & Bond’s Crime: 00:44 – 05:48
• Treaty Law & Supreme Court: 05:48 – 06:46
• Founding Fathers, Federalist Debate: 06:46 – 11:44
• Ducks, Missouri v. Holland, Treaty Power: 12:54 – 16:40
• Treaty Power Debate & Modern Implications: 16:40 – 20:32
• What Happened Next (Bond’s fate): 20:32 – 21:20

Tone & Style

The episode blends Radiolab’s signature curiosity, narrative drama, and playful banter. The hosts and guests alternate between sage constitutional reflection and tongue-in-cheek, irreverent asides, grounding legal abstractions in memorable stories—whether a jealous spouse or a duck’s life.

Takeaways

• A deeply local crime (revenge poisoning) led to a Supreme Court-level constitutional debate about the reach of federal and international law.
• The American system’s foundation is intentionally ambiguous, ensuring perpetual debate over state vs. federal power.
• Historic cases—right down to “duck law”—shape how the US government wields international treaties domestically.
• Complex, weird, and very human stories often disguise the philosophical arguments at the root of American governance.
• And sometimes, love trumps law—even chemical weapons treaties.