Breaking: Supreme Court rules against illegal alien Death Row murderer (and stupid Bush administration), upholds US sovereignty
This is very good news. Congrats to the state of Texas, which had to fight the open-borders lobby and the Bush administration all the way to the high court to prevent international law from superseding American sovereignty:
President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.
In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.
Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.
An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country’s consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.
Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court’s rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president’s declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.
The president may not “establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law,” Roberts said.
Andy McCarthy summed up the bottom line on this case last fall:
At bottom, the case is about the freedom of Texans to govern themselves, to put sadistic murderers to death if that is what they choose democratically to do, as long as they adhere to American constitutional procedures in carrying out that policy choice. Sure, it offends Mexicans, Europeans, international law professors, and a motley collection of jurists who see themselves as a supra-sovereign tribunal. But that is not a basis for the President to interfere.
The administration has made a great show of promoting democracy. Democracy, however, begins at home.
Don’t you forget it.
***
SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Deniston has more:
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984). Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules. The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said. And the World Court ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added.
The ruling also is a defeat for 51 Mexican nationals who won a World Court decision in 2004, finding that U.S. states had denied them their consular access rights and advising the U.S. government to take steps to enforce the ruling. In the specific case, Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin, sought to rely on both the World Court decision and the Bush memo to reopen his case, claiming that he was never given access to any Mexican diplomat while his case was going through Texas state courts.
The Bush Administration did not agree with the World Court ruling, and, in fact, withdrew from the international protocol that gave the World Court the authority to enforce the Vienna Convention. Even so, Bush issued a memo in February 2005, agreeing that the U.S. would seek to obey the World Court, and he told the states involve to “give effect” to that tribunal’s decision. The case thus came to the Court as a major test of presidential authority, in seeking to enforce treaty obligations, to override contradictory state criminal procedure rules. In that test, the presidency clearly lost.
The opinion will be posted here. Transcript of the oral arguments from last fall is here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Breaking: Supreme Court rules against illegal alien Death Row murderer, upholds US sovereignty
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » SCOTUS Rules in Favor of States Right to Execute Illegal Alien Murderers
- Shiny New Supreme Court « Federal Way Conservative
- Chalk One Up For U.S. » Pursuing Holiness
- Big Win For Texas!
- The Court Smacks Bush, Treaty « Axis of Right
- Diggers Realm
- Webloggin
- Theodore's World
- Random-American - News Analysis and the Rantings of an Ordinary Citizen » US Supreme Court upholds national sovereignty over Bush’s wishes
- Michelle Malkin » Hey, World Court: Bug off!
- Michelle Malkin » Illegal alien Death Row rapist/killer’s last-ditch appeal
- Michelle Malkin » Isn’t it ironic: Mexico lawmakers want to reinstate death penalty
- Michelle Malkin » Isn’t it ironic: Mexico lawmakers want to reinstate death penalty
- Michelle Malkin: Isn’t it ironic: Mexico lawmakers want to reinstate death penalty; Plus: Mexico cracks down on illegal aliens |
- Michelle Malkin » Lord Monckton’s warning to America
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration
Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney Case
Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasNewsBusters.org
» To Kos, Taliban's Real Crime Is Being Un-PCRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin Rises
Don’t mess with Texas!!
Outstanding!
Sometimes the good guys do actually win.
“Remember the Alamo”
Michelle, we are on the front lines down here and remember what Chertoff stated, about when we would get a fence as soon as he is done litigating with how many land owners a 100 or so yeah hows that going. You don’t have to impede or stop trade by up holding your soverienty, one is not mutually exclusive of the other. How about some security down here? The back door is still wide open.
“At bottom, the case is about the freedom of Texans to govern themselves, to put sadistic murderers to death if that is what they choose democratically to do, as long as they adhere to American constitutional procedures in carrying out that policy choice.”
Agreed.
Great news.
“Sure, it offends Mexicans, Europeans, international law professors, and a motley collection of jurists who see themselves as a supra-sovereign tribunal.”
Aw, gee….
Well, too (blanking) bad!
Now maybe if they didn’t come into this country illegally and commit murders, they wouldn’t have to worry about this pesky little thing called capital punishment.
Excellent news! I bet Geraldo is having a fit.
OMG, what great news for us in TX!! This should be the rule for all states now, I hope. Good for Judge Roberts for letting us govern our own states. No thanks to Bush on this one. US-1, Bush and illegals -0.
L
Good point about Geraldo – ha ha!
Ugh. So much is wrong with this. Since the death penalty wasn’t the issue in question, I’ll avoid complaining about capital punishment.
But you want sovereignty? Well the US signed this international treaty on its own accord. The US was a sovereign country in 1963, right? No one forced us to enter this international treaty.
And breaking treaties as if they didn’t pertain to us. You wonder why the international community hates us so much? People will look back at this decision when an American citizen is detained and executed without having access to consulates. We’ll probably whine and moan and some people will want to bomb that country back to The Stone Age. But we’re setting that undesirable precedent. These treaties aren’t to protect Mexican rapist murderers. They’re to protect our citizens abroad.
I’m going to need to read the decision because this decision makes no sense to me. Article II is quite clear on treaties and, last I checked, individual states are bound to the federal Constitution.
What a disgrace.
Is it Jan 20, 2009 yet? It can not come fast enough. Bush is lost, I wish he would just resign and turn it over to VP Cheney until a new president is sworn in.
And it’s not like a retrial is that big of a deal. If this guy is guilty, all the consulates in the world won’t stop his inevitable execution.
We’re putting diplomatic relations and American lives at risk over a freaking retrial.
Superb.
You absolutely nailed it Rusty…
I could give a rat’s arse if the international community “hates” us.
Fear us would be better.
How about those US citizens missing who were kidnapped and are being held in Mexico.
How does that fit into your thinking Rusty?
I see rusty is still siding with the murderers and against rights for the victims.
It was exactly this kind of Supreme Court decision that is why we need even more Justices on the bench that have actually read the Constitution. President GW Bush gets 1/2 and 1/2 on this one – because even though he may disagree with the decision, without him we wouldn’t have had Chief Justice Roberts on the bench helping make this decision.
I tend to hope that the Supreme Court judges know more than lawyers.
Only liberals wonder about why the international community hates us so much.
Rusty, to this outsider it’s a states rights issue. The president doesn’t have the authority granted to him to order a retrial. Simple as that. The federal government signed a treaty in bad faith as it didn’t have the authority to compel the states to comply with the treaty.
YES! YES! YES!
Texas, our Texas!!!!
Let me push the plunger!
DLTDHYOTWI
Don’t let the door hit you on the way in—in to the gas chamber!!!!
Don’t mess with Texas. This means you El presidente!!!!!!
Screw Rusty, Sausage, the “international community”, mexico, and all the rest of the clueless, useful idiots!!!
Do you clowns really think you’re adding a voice of reason to the discussion. You’re doing nothing but providing proof that the left is comprised of cowardly fools!
Thank God, that somebody on the Supreme Court has some guts, and understanding of sovereign boarders!!!
Simple, 30 – they want everyone to have warm-and-fuzzies over us. It’s their entire reason for living. In their world, that’s what counts – who cares about an innocent victim or two(or even 20 or 30)?
Rusty:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Congress must ratify a treaty before it becomes enforceable. This apparently was never ratified. Also, in general, if states can have their constitutionally mandated authority overruled on the whim of a small group of politically appointed Administration lawyers, then states are nothing more than satellite counties of the central government. This may be an appealing way to govern from a Euro point of view but Americans don’t typically roll that way. It’s not necessary to give more do-overs to these killers anyway. We gave them far more then Mexico ever would have. If their crimes had happened in Mexico, these guys would already be face down in a ditch. Just another opportunity to poke the gringos in the eye.
I’m frankly SHOCKED with the SCOTUS!
How could they have come to such a logical conclusion?
WOW..
/staying in TX
I bet that’s going to be the crux of the decision. But Article II gives the Executive Branch to enter into treaties with Senate approval and consent. Since the Constitution applies to the states, it reasons that the treaties should apply to the states as well. The 10th Amendment doesn’t apply since treaties are explicitly referenced in the Constitution.
Against the rights of the victims? Look at you, using words again without thinking about what they mean. No one has the “right” to have someone executed. That would be madness and anarchy.
As for siding with the murderer, again, no. Why are you so worried about a retrial? We shouldn’t be executing someone if there wasn’t a foolproof case against them. Just a retrial would go a long way in keeping our treaties and protecting American lives abroad. And after all is said and done you’d get your wish and get to read about a bad guy getting lethally injected.
If an American in Saudi Arabia or China were convited and executed without consulate support, you would be on my side of the argument. But instead you want it both ways. You want the protection of an international treaty without living up to our end of the bargain. That’s not how it works.
cpodug,
Up is down and 2+2= blue.
MM,
Thank you for posting the link to the opinion. It’s good reading.
the guerilla
FANTASTIC news!
For once common sense has prevailed and the Constitution enforced as an instrument to first protect Americans, by ensuring the sovereignty of all fifty states.
As hard as it may be for liberals to accept, the Constitution was and is intended to serve other purposes than as a mere tool for them to beat conservatives over the head!
There is a difference between unnecessarily appeasing other countries and fulfilling promises we made to them. If you wanted to make the argument that the Vienna Convention was a bad treaty, fine. That would piss of the international community but with little skin off of our backs (although I think the treaty is a good idea for reasons mentioned above). But we made the promise and then we back out. That’s unacceptable. Why should people treat us with good faith?
There are a lot of loud people who complain about the effectiveness of the death penalty. So here is the most recent study result. The execution of a convicted murdered prevents somewhere between 3 and 18 other murders. (This is a study done by anti-death penalty advocates who expected to find the opposite. Unfortunately, they couldn’t argue with the statistics. Of course, the study was immediately discredited by other anti-death penalty advocates because it didn’t fit their desired outcome.)
Also, breaking news, a couple of radical left-wing supervisors in San Diego want to have a day to honor the great work of the ACLU. Check it out on WND.
Well you go re-read whatever you feel like, I’m afraid that whatever opinion you may have of it, will NOT reverse their ruling. The SCOTUS has spoken on behalf of the silent MAJORITY of this great nation and it is done. We have since opted out of that portion of the treaty from my understanding, so it’s a moot point now.
WhatYou’re a disgrace.Right on Gayle!
And don’t forget our non-combatants in Iraq. Yeah I’m sure they were given access to their consulate and given a fair trail before being murdered. Where’s the so called “World Court” there?
#13 On March 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am, gayle said:
“I could give a rat’s arse if the international community “hates” us.
Fear us would be better.”
Exactly correct.
With regard to posters’ wasting their time debating with the provider of posts #’s 9, 11, & 24:
Take a moment and click on that individual’s blog tag; go to that individual’s web site; and read what that individual posted about a month or so ago about one of his bodily fuctions, even to the point of providing a satellite map to localize the “deposit”.
Then, stop and consider whether it is worth your time, effort, and oxygen to give any weight at all to that individual’s comments and “arguments”.
Any treaty signed cannot abrogate the rights and privileges set forth under the US Constitution. In other words, a treaty, like any other law passed in the US, must comply with the provisions of the Constitution. If that were not the case, the US Senate could easily eliminate the second amendment by adopting the UN’s position on small arms, could drive a stake through the first amendment by following the UN’s position on “hate speech”, and could easily pick off right by right by signing treaties and ratifying protocols set forth by countries with little respect for what we consider to be inalienable rights.
A standing ovation for Ted Cruz, Texas’ solicitor general. Ted is one hell of a talented lawyer and is a staunch conservative. I had the pleasure to chat with him for more than a few moments at a Dallas Cowboys game, of all places. He is a humble, unassuming man of immense intellect and talent. Look for Ted to one day run for Governor of Texas. He would have my vote!
If the trolls are offended, it must be a positive step.
Retrials are a big deal. Evidence may be lost between trials, witnesses may be unavailable, the defense got the best preview in the world of the prosecutions strategy giving them a huge leg up in the next trial and all of that does not include the additional costs to the tax payers that will be involved.
I haven’t read the treaty and don’t know if it’s relevant, but it is more than reasonable to rely on the opinion of the Supreme Court rather than arm-chair justices.
Now if they could only overturn the convictions of the two border agents.
…bodily functions…
Apologies.
Stevens concurred–I’m floored.
No, it’s more like we’re finally putting the welfare and protection of the US CITIZENS first, for a change.
International law or treaties do NOT override the constitution of the United States.
Get over it.
Analogous to canaries in a coal mine.
Most liberals are very unpleasant, whether they are here OR abroad. So, let the “High Minded” (John Bolton’s term for liberals), cry about this decision. Who on earth (except libs)cares what they think?
For Rusty and Sausage, this concern with the “international community” and “diplomatic relations” = ONLY liberal countries, like France, or envious basket cases, like corrupt Mexico.
30 pieces, Rusty and Sausage and all liberals, because they are very narrow-minded, define the “international community” as “those who agree with us.”
I’m sure a lot of countries, like Singapore and Japan, will be applauding this decision. But Rusty and Sausage only care about the LIBERAL “international community.”
In any case, this a great decision. States should never be bound by international treaties that infringe upon our Constitution.
I think you’re underestimating the seriousness of this case. SCOTUS Blog is suggesting that this decision could give states the right to ignore American treaties. If that’s the case then, wow. How many treaties that we take for granted are being put at risk.
I would love to see how Texas’s senators voted on the Vienna Convention back in the 1960s. If they approved it, that would just be icing on the cake.
All to avoid one retrial of a person who is 100% guilty. I mean, he must be 100% guilty since we’re taking the trouble to kill him and everything.
You guys are really seeing big picture here.
No, what it means is that the Constitution, ie the compact of powers agreed to between the Individual States, and the Federal Government, is NOT able to be amended by ONE party of that compact.
If this had stood, then the Feds could sign and ratify ANY treaty, which then the STATES would have to adhear to, even if it was agains the Constitution.
They could sign a hate speech Treaty and then enforce it on the States, limiting Free Speech….
What this did was say that the Feds could not enforce a treaty that trumps the Constitution.
I applaud this decision.
Rusty, obviously you are not too familiar with constitutional law. This is a great and correct decision, even Kennedy and one liberal judge sided with the state of TX. The US may have signed a treaty, but that treaty cannot be imposed on the states, uless the states specifically agree to it. See, the constitution of the US about the rights of the states vs. the federal government. This is not Europe or Mexico, this is the US and it is about time the US Supremem Court goes back to its roots, not succumbing to foreign laws and protecting the states and our laws.
Jorge Bush: Defeated again, more and more reason not ot like this guy. I now regret EVERY DAY ever voting for this guy. That is why I can never vote for McCain. HE will make me regret any such vote even more.
International law and treaties are part of Article II of the Constitution you love so much. So, yeah, these treaties should trump state law. You can’t pick and choose which part of the Constitution you love so much. That would make you no better than a liberal who wants to ban handguns.
I have to agree with Rusty. What’s the point of signing a treaty if the state can choose not to respect it?
When an american citizen is arrested abroad, we’d argue for providing him/her with access to American authorities who might aid their defense.
These people who are so worried about what the international community thinks of us are the same ones that refuse to be real parents because they’re afraid their kids won’t like them.
Grow a backbone and quit worrying if everybody likes you.
Besides, we’re all just a region, remember?
Ignoring a couple of wingnuts above I am delighted that Texas [my home] prevailed – this scum got his trial, done – now push the plunger and finish the job.
It is far past time for the US to stop trying to be a dying state like the EU – we deserve better.
Before everybody wrings their hands consider what would have happened to this clown if he had done the crime in Mexico.
Treaties require Senate approval and consent. So a super-majority of state elected officials did in fact approve it.
rusty the troll wrote:
No, rusty the troll, I know exactly what the meaning of the words are that I use in my posts – that is why I use those exact words. You are again defending the “rights” of the murderers. They have no “right” to committ murder.
And yes, once they have committed a murder, we have the right to execute them for that murder.
Yes. If you weren’t then you would be more concerned with the rights of the two girld tortured and murdered by the criminals than trying to push “international law” down the throats of the people of America.
Why are you so afraid of the results of the first trial? What, they didn’t let the murderers walk so you feel that they should be retried until that happens?
So, now you’re a fool? lol
BTW, the case was “foolproof”.
No, it wouldn’t. I hate to break the news to you, but nobody abroad is going to protect American lives just because we stop enforcing our laws here.
After all is said and done, I’m getting my wish – I only wish they’d stop this stupid “we must execute people nicely”. Let their last meal be an uncooked egg and steak on a steel tray and let it fry while they are stiing in the chair!
Here you show that you are completely clueless. They do that to us anyway already.
And no, I don’t want it both ways. Before you tell me what I want, why don’t you ask me first?
This is why you’re known as rusty the troll.
Also, Rusty is confusing Senators form TX to the FEDERAL government and STATE SENATORS and reps. WE have a system of a federal government and state governments that have rights that the federal goverments cannot impeded upon. It would have been SCARY if the court ruled for Jorge Bush and the illegal murdered, because then our current system of government will be completely erroded and states will become simply like counties/cities in any European nation, where the federal goverments run almost everything and the states will have no power.
Imagine what would happen if an American was accused of a capital crime in Mexico and wasn’t able to meet with American officials until after his conviction. The commenters here would be screaming and hollering.
This is especially lolzy. I’ll give you one dollar for every “dying” Euro and we’ll see who ends up 150% richer. Hint: not you.
Amen to ignoring the desires of the trolls on this board, the UN and the Euroweenies. And talk about wishful thinking and double standards. Look at how Mexico treats its southern neighbors and own Indian tribes.
And how is it that out own Senate voted unanimously against Kyoto when Clinton/Gore were in office and yet we are deluged with world opinion and lefty ranting about how USA is the main culprit in AGW?
But I do agree with the world community that we should not have convicted criminals languishing on Death Row. Let’s get those gas chambers and electric chairs working to end all the killers’ potential for recidivist behavior. Ditto for Guantanamo.
As an aside, Jane’s has a survey that puts USA around #22 on best countries overall. Of course they lower ours for gun ownership and other Bill of Rights stuff. UK was #7 and Vatican #1. Big whoopdedoo and surprisingly Iraq was not in bottom ten.
No I am not. Remember, before the 17th Amendment, Senators were considered representatives of their state’s Legislature. They were elected by that Legislature, not by the people. So when the Constitution talks about the Senate, they are referring to a legislative body that represents the interests of the states. The House represents the interests of the people.
So the states did in fact approve of this treaty.
Good!!! If treaties are unconstitutional, then so be it.
Yes, but OUR court disagreed. Who cares what a court outside the country thinks? States are not bound by a decision by a banana republic international court.
What a great decision by the Supreme Court!
#49 JHSII:
ROFLMAO!!!
Outstanding!!!
I’d like to see any of the commenters here try to deny the above.
I wonder which liberal judge sided with the majority, does anyone know?
Then have the SC or the legislature overturn the treaty. The answer is not to give each state the option to abide by them or not. If that’s the case, signing a treaty is meaningless.
It is also a defeat for the World Court, thank God. It has no jurisdiction in the United States. It has no legality. It is a concoction of the Globalist, which includes the George Bushes.
Now Bush, FREE out Border Guards.
Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter dissented.
L
Rusty, you don’t understand economics. A weak dollar is GOOD for our economy and BAD for Europe’s. Why do you think France was begging us just a few months ago to strengthen our dollar? A weak dollar = more exports for us and less for France and other European countries, which is good for our businesses.
I’ve got to agree with Rusty on the point that this will have a pretty large backlash from the international community. It’s not that I care what they think, it’s that this can now be used against us. They will argue that presidence has been set that the US didn’t comply with a treaty, therefore they are not required to when it applies to one of our citizens. The fact is, a problem like this will occur and how quickly most people will forget this situation.
With that said, the situation that this had to be decided is terrible, but the outcome is 100% spot on. This establishes the constitution and the rights granted by it as the governing law and no federal treaty (or any other agreement) can superceed it. Period.
The only thought I can give Rusty, is that I would assume (and I feel fairly confident about it) that the courts did due process on this person so that he had his full day in court (which being illegal is more than he deserves). I would hope that the international community would see that too, where when one of our citizens doesn’t have access to our diplomats. They will give him full due process to clear his name. I wouldn’t want to coddle murderers and rapists regardless of their citizenship and location.
You mean like Capian and Ramos. Oh, I forget, they didn’t really have to go to Mexico for this to happen.
Laws and treaties are passé.
FCO, I will answer you since you are mixing apples and oranges. First, The US provides (every state and our US constituione) the right to an attorney, due process, etc. So, this scum most likely had some of the best legal defense. If he did not, his case will be overturned on any other ground. In countries like MExico and China, there are no such safegueards and I doubt China is a member of many treaties anyway. So, an American will have the right to scream if an AMerican is TREATED unfairly (not just denied access to the consulate, that won’t do much, but access to a lawyer, as we provide here and cannot deny). So, your example and Rusty’s example is simply STUPID and does not corrolate in any way to reality here. Don’t you think the US government was making just the same dumb argument just to get a spanking. This is the same argument McCain makes against waterboarding. And it is not flying very well with the people since we all know the enemy will waterborad and torture anyway.
Another reason not to let Hussein Obama get elected. What kind of judges do you think we will get?
Tell that to my buying power. Oh, I guess, inflation is good for our economy too.
Thanks letget!
I agree with the decision. An international court cannot supercede State law, regardless of the National gov’t involvment. You assume that because we signed this treaty, that, now, an international court can supercede any law of any state. Not quite, my friends…not quite. That could spell disaster. Imagine if this court decided Texas wasn’t doing enough for..say, the environment, and decided to force the state to accept its own ideas, as law. What sort of treaty is that? No, state law is outside some court somewhere in Europe. Nice idea for international socialism though…if you like that idea.
#22 On March 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am, jcflindsay said:
“Rusty:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Congress must ratify a treaty before it becomes enforceable. This apparently was never ratified.”
If this treaty has/had never been retified by Congress, would that not punture the trolls’ main “argument” point?
Can anyone confirm whether this treaty is indeed UNratified?
Also, folks, notice the troll’s pointing to the value of the Euro vs the U.S. dollar as a reason why we’re wrong to believe the obvious…that Europe is dying before our eyes.
D’ya think the troll is correct?
Should we really, really wanna be just like those cool, smart Europeans?
Ptooey!!
Look at what selfish, materialistic, hedonistic, religion-is-for-chumps-and-fools, socialist, secularist thinking has done for, or rather to, Europe.
But, you had better look quickly, before it(Europe)’s gone!
Nice ad hom attack… of course you do know that the UN is trying to get us into a treaty that WOULD take guns away from us?
Your correct, the Feds signed this treaty, but it does not meet Constitutional tests… it changes the compact between the feds and the States WITHOUT going through the amendment process, and so is invalid.
As to the 17th amemndment, IMO that was one of the largest Federal grabs of power ever. The State Governments no longer have direct representatives to the Federal Government… big mistake.
Founders gave Treaty power to the Senate for a reason, because they WANTED States input into treaty negotiations…
By the way, I, like all of you, don’t really care for the World Court. SCOTUS should take precedence. If a treaty violates our Constitution, that treaty is rubbish no matter what the World Court says.
Now, if someone could please tell me how it’s unconstitutional for non-citizens to talk to be allowed to talk to a consulate, I’m all ears.
If a treaty is Constitutional, and I don’t see how this one isn’t, then we must abide by it. Not just when it’s convenient. Always.
Now we’ve been exposed as a bad-faith actor.
We also entered into an agreement that we would give captured foreign nationals access to their consulate. And we just reneged on that agreement. I understand the point being made about states rights, but if a state can pick and choose which treaties it will respect in which cases, then there’s no point in signing the treaty in the first place. A treaty is supposed to be a binding contract between nations, not something that looks nice on paper and has some simbolic value, and “maybe” we’ll abide by it when it’s convenient for us. Will we expect other countries to negotiate treaties individually with every single state in the union?
Now, if an American is captured in Europe, and denied access to his consulate, they can point to this case and say “you don’t honor the treaty, so we don’t have to either”. This is not to say they would have either way, but we just gave them a good excuse.
#8 Rusty maybe you should go read the constitution on treaties. We can break them anytime we want. The contitution supersedes treaties!
HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that
1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,
3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.
“This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,
“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…
“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).
“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”
Bush Siding with the Illegal Aliens againt his own country…….now there’s a shocker!!! (Sarcasm).
Everyone can see from their actions and statements that he, McCain, Lyndsey “Rainbow flag” Graham are in the tank or on the dole of the Mexican Gov’t. They care more about Mexico’s Citizens than they do about American Citizens.
Any Gov’t official (President) who sends the homeland security secretary to spend all his time Lobbying congress and the senate on Behalf of the Illegal Aliens doesn’t give a damn about real security.
I’ll deny it, if an American is FAIRLY tried and convicted abroad without consultation, I couldn’t care less. That country has EVERY right to enforce it’s laws as well.
Why do the illegal Mexicans think International Law supersedes American Law:
Article 36 of the VCCR requires that foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice “without delay” of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest. The notice can be as simple as a fax, giving the person’s name, the place of arrest, and, if possible, something about the reason for the arrest or detention. The police must fax that notice to the embassy or consulate, which can then check up on the person.
But guess what Rusty:
In March of 2005, the United States pulled out of the Optional Protocol to the convention, which allows the International Court of Justice to intervene when detained foreign nationals are denied access to consular officials when imprisoned in a country that is a signatory to the convention. In June 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that foreign nationals who are deprived of the right to consular notification and access after an arrest may not use the treaty violation to suppress evidence obtained in police interrogation or belatedly raise legal challenges after trial (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon[1]
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Is it now up to our president who speaks Spanish and pig Latin better than English to refer our Supreme Court ruling to the Mexican courts.
I know it is scary the type of judges BO will give us, but Souter was a Bush Sr. appointee, Stevens was a Ford appointee and Kennedy was REagan appointee I think. Bush Jr. almost gave us Harriet Myers, a crony of his. I have a feeling McCain will give us more Ginsbergs, like BO would.
Yes, if you want to buy imports and to travel to Europe. Liberals have a very skewed understanding of economics because they get it from the MSM.
A weak dollar is dramatic and plays on fears. It is actually good for our economy. American car companies–just one example–will sell more cars abroad because our product will be cheaper. Boeing will sell more airplanes. The tourist industry in America is booming.
Why do you think France was begging us to strengthen our dollar? For our own good and because they care about us so much? Yes, that would be just like France.
No, it is because THEIR exports are suffering around the world and ours are booming because of our weak dollar, hurting their economy.
No, what really happened here is that these individuals were not TOLD they could see an embassy person. The case was never that they were denied this “right” but that they were not told about it, until after the trial.
The Fix is easy, add a line to the Miranda warning… and we will then be in treaty compliance… but that is NOT a reason to overthrow a Murder conviction IMO…
The Treaty vs. US Constitution subthread here is a strawman. No one is arguing that foreign courts, laws or treaties supersede the Constitution.
If a treaty is found to be unconstitutional then it needs to be overturned officially and notifying the other signataries so they can examine their end of the bargain towards the US. The solution is not to allow each state to opt out on a whim. If a state feels the treaty is unconstitutionally infringing on their rights, they need to make the case through the right process.
My understanding of the case is that they did not KNOW they had the right to talk to their Embassy, not that they were denied permision to do so…
In other words, they were not told that during a Miranda type warning.
Then why are you, Rusty, complaining about this excellent decision by the Supreme Court?
To force an illegal drug dealer to have a retrial because of a decision by an International Court is CLEARLY against the Constitution.
I would buy this if we were an exporting nation, but we are not. A weak does means my savings and money market accounts get 1 percent interest. A weak dollar means prices for gas (and now food) go up. A weak dollar means the US stock market has actually dropped 50 percent. A weak dollar means China needs to increase the cost of our imports, that includes 80 percent of our pharmaceuticals. A weak dollar is a cheezy way that the government steals your money.
Which is EXACTLY what Texas did. They felt the Feds were infringing, so they took the Feds to court.
Supreme Court decided, and now Congress and the Pres will have to rethink…
System does take time… but it did work.
Anybody – ANYBODY who thinks we should lay down state law for what the World Court decides is messed up in the head.
Great going Texas! Great job SCOTUS save three.
Now, about our guns…
@FCO, I’m not sure what you think this supreme court decision is then?
Many times federal and state laws have been overturned not by sending things through the legislative channels to have things repealed but by the SC stating that the law in question doesn’t have constitutional grounds. Is this not an official way of overturning a law? Is this not a historically accurate process?
I bet liberals (and pro-alien Republicans) now want a Miranda warning for all illegals arrested. That is what George Bush was telling Texas.
They want the police NOT to be able to question the legal or illegal status of a person arrested.
But they also want ALL illegals to be given access to their consulate, which you can only do if you know the status. Otherwise, the conviction can be overturned.
What liberals and the International Court decision on the Medellin case are saying is that illegals are completely beyond American law. Can you imagine the ramifications?
Thank God liberals and the liberal “international community” have been shot down with this great Supreme Court decision.
What liberal fascists like Rusty really want is a way of amending the pesky US Constitution without having to get the approval of the stupid American people, right Rusty?
Want to scrap the Second Amendment? Just sign a gun ban “treaty” with some other country. Presto! It’s the law of the land in America.
Want to gut the First Amendment? The same technique can be used.
It’s funny that the same clowns who were bashing Bush for over-stepping his powers (when he was not) are now defending him for the most absurd over-reach possible.
What would Rusty think if Bush signed a “treaty” with some other country calling for the imprisionment without trial of all lefties such as himself? Would that be in accordance with the Constitution?
What a maroon …..
As far as Americans abroad goes…I can tell you that if you fly into Singapore, for example, you read and sign a statement, before landing, and also see it on walls in the airport, that if you smuggle drugs on you, the penalty is death, and that the U.S. can’t help you. The Embassy lets you know right off. Always know the laws in the land you’re visiting. Sure can save a lot of agony.
But the SC did not rule on the constitutionality of the treaty. They only ruled that the president could not order a retrial, against the state’s wishes, in the pursuit of honoring the treaty. As of this point, the constitutionality of the treaty is not being challenged anywhere in the system.
Here are some simple observations:
1. Just because they didn’t get to talk to their consulate, did they still have full representation? Yes.
2. They can always appeal if there is evidence that clears them.
3. They are trying to get out on a minor technicality.
4. These illegals want all of the benefits of being U.S. citizens, but none of the consequences.
5. Show me a country with 12-40 million U.S. nationals living in it illegally that this precedent will cause a problem.
6. There are hundreds of U.S. citizens missing in Mexico. Did they get to talk to their consul?
7. Apparently there are three clueless Supreme Court justices.
8. Trolls that can make an argument without name calling and spewing vitriol are better than the ones that can’t.
Fco
You are.
You don’t consider Supreme Court Rulings to be “official”? And I see nothing preventing the other signataries from re-examining “their end of the bargin” now, or at any time they feel like it.
Even for a lefty, that is an exceptionally obtuse comment. Since you don’t think that fighting the ruling in court was the right process, I can only assume that you think Texas should have seceded from the Union.
Yep, because Texas had no standing to do so… it could not sue until the Feds tried to do somthing that was Unconstitutional… and then all they could do is fight the action, not the base treaty itself.
But now the Feds find themselves with a Treaty that is unenforcable… so THEY will have to fix it.
We have a weird system…
flenser:
Thanks for letting me know.
As I said on #92, the case was not about the constitutionality of the treaty, but about the president overstepping his bounds in ordering a retrial. The treaty has not been nullified and is still very much in place, on paper anyway.
So, then you like $100 a barrel oil and $3.00 plus a gallon gasoline? In addition, for those of you who don’t invest and therefore can ignore international finance and trade, the dollar is the world currency. However, it has reached a point of weakness where the major holders of dollars and the biggest exporters to the US (read OPEC) are considering switching to the Euro. If they do, you haven’t even begun to see weakening of the dollar and galloping inflation. A weak dollar, contrary to what you seem to believe, is NOT good for our economy (otherwise, a dollar worth nothing at all would make us all rich, instead of paupers) – it is good for those businesses who export goods. It is NOT good for the consumer who pays ever increasing prices for the same merchandise – i.e. inflation.