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
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
American Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftDoug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Nice Deb
» OGreen Room
» Times Slimes Obamic Climes
Fco
You are being incoherent. The objection to this court ruling from the left is that it does gut the “treaty”. Or at least, Bush’s reading of the treaty, which you Bush lovers are of course anxious to defend.
There are increasing numbers of economically illiterate Republicans like this around. I blame the public schools.
Romeo13
Ok, very good point. But then shouldn’t the SC have addressed that in their ruling? I don’t see anywhere that treaty itself (as opposed to the president’s action in this particular case) is being legally challenged on constitutional grounds.
Again, I would love you to enlighten me on how giving a non-citizen consulate access is unconstitutional.
It appears that the problem isn’t that the treaty isn’t unconstitutional, but rather that it’s unenforceable if a state decides to ignore it. Which is where we are now.
Texas should be ashamed of itself. Not only can I imagine the reaction on this site if an American citizen were sentenced to death while ignoring an international treaty, I can also imagine how people would react if Massachusetts or California started deciding which treaties to adhere to and which to ignore.
Maybe ‘Federalism’ is still alive and kicking! Hallelujah for that.
“isn’t unconstitutional” should be “is unconstitutional.” Whoopsie.
McCarthy, who the leftist shock troops here did not bother to read in the link above.
Liberalism=Fascism.
Well, Texas was blatantly ignoring Article II. That isn’t federalism. It’s anarchy.
It’s called Hick-onomics
#104 On March 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, flenser said:
“Liberalism=Fascism.”
Exactly.
That seems to be astoundingly dense, even for you. The SCOTUS did not rule that “giving a non-citizen consulate access is unconstitutional”.
I suggest you attempt to read the ruling before making a bigger fool of yourself. And look up “strawman arguments” somewhere, and then stop making them.
In general, I’d agree with you, but since we’re dealing with illegals here, they have no rights, to consular visits or anything else of the kind. They got (apparently) fair trials, plus the usual unlimited appeals, which are in most cases far fairer than they would have received in their home countries.
How very generous of Rusty to offer to pay for the costs of new trials for all of these people who have already had a trial and been convicted.
No Rusty, asking the legal citizens of this country to pay for it is not acceptable. The legal citizens have already incurred a great deal of cost – human life as well as financial.
And for what it’s worth, I’ve lived overseas many years of my life. And yes, the right to confer with the US Consulate in case of being accused of a crime is in fact a great comfort. But I can tell you, if you don’t commit the crime in the first place, it’s not an issue.
Will love to see what the Obama court says about this in the future!
The majority opinion did in fact note that treaties must be consistent with the US Constitution. They did not have to declare the treaty unconstitutional, since they found that its provisions were not enforceable on the states based on the terms of the treaty and the limits of Presidential power. Only if it was found to be applicable to the states would the Court have had to address the constitutionality of the treaty itself. Under the rules that govern judicial review, the Court is bound to only address the claims before them, and not to get into matters which are not directly at issue.
The dissenting opinion ceased their constitutional scrutiny at the supremacy clause. A sobering and telling analysis. Those who would view the supremacy clause as the epitome of constitutional guidance would also use that clause as a means for the federal government dictating to all US citizens in nanny-like fashion.
Regarding the argument that the case should have been retried and the defendant given the counsel of the Mexican consulate, the issue of the intervention of the Consulate was litigated at both the trial and appellate levels. The courts concluded that the intervention of the Mexican Consulate would have had zero impact on the outcome of the case. And the appeal to the Supreme Court did not rebut that conclusion.
As far as the Constitutionality of the treaty itself, an analysis of the treaty would have almost certainly led to its declaration as unconstitutional.
First and foremost, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. Any laws enacted at the federal level made pursuant to the Constitution also become the supreme law of the land. Any law enacted by Congress must be made pursuant to the Constitution. And any treaty made must first be made pursuant to the valid exercise of Congressional power under the Constitution (and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof) plus must made in accordance with the laws of the United States which are consistent with the Constitution ( “…and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States”). Thus, any treaty made must be in accord with the Constitution and must not abrogate its protections, limitations, or separation of powers.
The Tenth Amendment provides that any power not granted to the federal government under the constitution is the power of the individual states. The criminal justice system, and the ability of a state to try defendants for crimes in accordance with the protections afforded by the Constitution clearly is, and has always been, a state matter.
To force a state to submit to the ruling of an international tribunal not only flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, it makes a mockery out of the separation of powers and effectively neuters both state and federal sovereignty with respect to matters reserved for the judiciary.
Imagine the Senate ratifying a treaty that forces the President to submit to the authority of the UN Security Council. Or a treaty that requires the United States to follow all UN mandates passed by a majority of UN member states. Congress would never submit to such a plan, and the President would surely seek to overturn any such mandate that eviscerated Executive powers.
But that is exactly what is happening to both the federal and state judicial powers with the push to force submission to the rulings of the International Court. And in my view is unconstitutional. It sacrifices the sovereignty of both the United States and the states, it violates the separation of powers clause by imposing foreign limitations and restrictions on the power of the judiciary, and it flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment.
Neither the Legislative, nor the Executive, nor the Judicial branches of the federal government can do anything that is not consistent with the Constitution. Period.
Rusty said “That isn’t federalism. It’s anarchy.”
Kinda like sanctuary cities?
Rusty, the treaty was unconstitutional in that it infringed upon the constitutional agreement between the Federal and State governments. Only an amendment to the Constitution can remove a constitutional power.
From a legal perspective, one party cannot change the terms of an agreement without RESECURING the agreement from the other party. This was not done.
It is good to see true justice coming out of our high court!
Gabe, stick to RCC theology. From your posts in this thread, what you know about economics would fit in a thimble.
1) The Court disagrees with you, and agrees with Texas. So what you mean to say is “In my ignorant and left-wing-biased opinion, Texas should have to submit in all respects to it’s betters, by which I mean people like me.”
2) This sudden conviction on the part of the left, that Bush has sweeping powers to interpet the law in novel ways which appeal to him, is most peculiar. I can only assume that your worship of unchecked central power is overcoming your dislike of Bush.
Don’t play with words you don’t understand.
I see that the liberals are out in force here today. All right, dakine. From your vast store of economics expertise, explain why a falling dollar is a good thing.
Rusty #105 where was Texas ignoring Article 2?
You do also, know each state has their own constitutions as well.
Flenser, it’s not a straw man. Many people on this thread are saying SCOTUS should reject unconstitutional treaties. I’m not making the straw man. I’m merely responding to the straw man argument. Since the treaty is clearly, without a doubt, 100% constitutional, the treaties that SCOTUS rejects do not matter in regards to this debate.
After looking over it more, I understand the reasoning behind the decision. But it doesn’t make the decision any more problematic for diplomatic relations or excuse Texas for their wanton disregard of international treaties. I would still side with the minority, but I’m not quite as perplexed as I was in comment nine.
flenser, re-read Gabe’s last post on this subject. I DO NOT think that a falling dollar is a good thing.
Jim M, excellent summary of the decision. Is it your opinion that if the direct issue comes before the Supremes in the future that they will find this treaty to be unconstitutional?
Which are all overruled by the Federal Constitution. Which says that states have to abide by international treaties made by the Executive Branch with Senate approval and consent. The Vienna Convention fits that description and Texas ignored it.
Also flenser, I’m in no way a liberal. Old-school conservative. Pretty libertarian on social issues and pragmatically conservative on economic and foreign affairs issues.
Rust#119
News Flash!
Texas was under no obligation to follow International Law!
Instructions Please Read Before Going Forward: Go back to Civics Class before Posting
Dakine, the problem with Jim M’s analysis is that it presupposes that the treaty in question is unconstitutional. It isn’t. If there was some international treaty banning hand guns that the Executive and Senate approved and the World Court wanted us to enforce it, SCOTUS could step up to the plate and tell them to go eat a fig.
The problem with the decision is that it allows states to ignore constitutional treaties with no consequence. Which kind of makes treaties useless.
And making treaties useless is a huge blow to Article II of the Constitution.
Rusty #121
Let me write slowly for you…….
Texas is under NO obligation to follow International Law!
Dakine
I believe if the issue of the constitutionality of the treaty comes directly before the Court, they will find it unconstitutional. To hold otherwise would allow the Senate to eviscerate the Constitution by entering into treaties that destroy the rights and privileges set forth in the Constitution, thereby making the Senate a power unbalanced.
Yes they were! The Constitution, which applies to all states, is quite clear on this. That’s the issue here.
Rusty, understood. Jim M is a smart and articulate guy, so I’m interested in his analysis regarding the constitutionality of the treaty as he sees it. Interestingly, Justice Kennedy has a very strong and often stated interested in international law and courts, so it is noteworthy that he was with the majority on this decision.
Well, that’s progress of a sort.
You have an annoying, dare I say liberal, habit of casually describing your own opinions as infallible.
Texas has no obligation to go along with international treaties which impinge on it’s own rights. This is true both as a matter of natural law, and now, with this decision, as a matter of positive law.
You need to be broken of this habit of trying to pass off your own ill-informed opinions as indisputable fact. Trust me, you will be.
Um, it appears the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The treaty abrogates Judiciary power to an outside agency, not the state… THAT is directly in violation of the Constitution, which leaves this to the STATES… and because it states in the Constitution that all treaties MUST be in agreement with the Constitution…
It is defacto NOT Constitutional.
#115 dakine,
What Gabe said was correct. Exporters will benefit as will the tourism industry. Our economy is not as simple as that, though. Due to the vast amount we import and the globalization of our economy, the overall effect of a weak dollar is negative.
Perhaps you would like to enlighten with your vast economic knowledge rather than belittle a fellow conservative. Let’s save that for the trolls.
Do you understand what you’re arguing? If states can choose which treaties to ignore, all of our treaties and economic agreements are useless! This completely undermines Article II and makes this country decidedly un-United. The Constitution was seen as an improvement over the Articles of Confederation for precisely this reason. The federal government is in charge of treaties as long as the get Senate (the states) approval. And, yes, of course they apply to states.
Wayyyy back in this thread, somebody (I’ll give you one guess who made this argument) said, “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.”
Right. There’s NO WAY he’d ever be found “not guilty,” even after irrefutable evidence was presented…right? Of course, there was NO WAY they were going to let O.J. skate free…there was NO WAY they would ACTUALLY deport Elian Gonzalez…there was NO WAY the U.S. Senate would fail to convict a known perjurer who obstructed justice and abused his power…there was NO WAY that a court would actually allow Terri Schiavo to die, even though she wasn’t a “vegetable” like all the drive-by media kept drum-beating…RIGHT?
George W. Bush lays out, in his OWN BOOK, regarding the execution of Karla Faye Tucker in Texas, that he used two criteria when deciding whether or not to go through with an execution: 1.) Is there any doubt as to the guilt or innocence of this individual? (seems like there isn’t); and 2.) Did the individual have full access to the court system? (seems like he did) Even THEN, somehow he STILL managed to side with the Mexican Government (because we KNOW this is what it’s all about; screw the World Court and any applicable international treaties…for him, this is about Mexico, period!) instead of recognizing that this is a states’ rights issue. Would expect a former Congressman or Senator to forget this every once in a while, but a former GOVERNOR?? FROM Texas??? Makes no sense.
I’m curious as to what the many liberals here think should be done if the US Federal government enters into a “treaty” with a foreign power which has the effect of nullifying, for instance, the First Amendment.
Since you all plainly see this is a handy way to modify the Constitution without needing to consult the American people.
I’ll ask again:
Anyone know if in fact this treaty WAS approved by Congress?
#133 I completely understand what I’m arguing. You seem to be the only one that doesn’t!
Please read article 2 and get back to the Supreme Court as to why their decision is WRONG!
The Constitution Supercedes ALL Treaties in this country whether you agree or NOT!
Rusty,
Read what I wrote and not what you want to see. My analysis does not presume the treaty to be unconstitutional. The court did not have to get to that level of analysis, finding that the treaty was not supported by any action on the part of Congress to enact its provisions into federal law, and further finding that the President did not have the powwer to assume the role of Congress in trying to enforce provisions that had not been enacted by Congress.
The issue of the constitutionality was not before the court. If it was, I laid out my thoughts on why it would likely be declared to be unconstitutional. I must admit, I used logic and reason and did not revert to emotion nor feelings. Thus, the issue of what other countries may think was not something I addressed.
If Congress was so concerned about what others think, they would exercise great pains to ensure that any treaty adopted or ratified met Constitutional muster. They would thus avoid the “embarrassment” of appearing to renig on a promise they were not capable of making in the first place.
flenser, Rusty can speak for himself, but based on his prior posts, I believe he would agree that such a treat would clearly be unconstitutional on its face.
Jim M, do you see it the same way as Romeo does in 131 above? Would you mind just flushing out your analysis a bit as the the basis for your opinion that the treat is unconstitutional.
Agreed, except it is you and others (liberals) that are economically illiterate. You and dakine need to stop getting your only understanding of economics from Katie Couric and the MSM.
Evidently, Flenser and dakine have never studied economics or lived in another country and observed their economy. I have lived in South Korea, have taken economics in college, and know a lot about economics.
Why did the French President Sarkozy complain that our weak dollar was hurting his country?
Hmm, they care so much about us, they want to help us, so they want us to strengthen our dollar? Is that what our liberals dakine and Flenser think?
No, what the MSM WANTS you to think is that a weak dollar is bad for the economy because they think your ignorance boosts Hussein Obama’s chances in the upcoming election.
A weak dollar actually is very good for the economy, particularly now, because our exports are boosted.
Fair enough. There’s certainly room for disagreement on almost every Constitutional issue. Of course I am hardly the only one doing that, but it doesn’t excuse what I admit is an obnoxious debating tactic.
However SCOTUS did not rule that the treaty was unconstitutional. They ruled that treaties are basically unenforceable. Again, I see the reasoning here. But I still must insist that the damage done to Article II here is epic.
Actualy an interesting case gong forward right now…
The UN wants everyone to Pony up .7% of GDP for “relieving poverty”. The treaty is ready for signing, and Obama has put a Law to Congress so that we would do that…
Now, since the House has to start all spending bills… can the SENATE, through a Treaty, obligate us to an ongoing amount of money sent to the UN? Especialy as its specificly written into the Constitution about how often you must renew spending bills?
Or, is this by its very structure, not enforcable under the Constitution?
So you are saying that if the US enters into an international treaty to, lets say, exterminate all left-handed people, the individual state have no option but to comply?
You know, lots of states and cities around the country are doing exactly what you are whining about here. They are defying federal immigration law and declaring themselves illegal immigrant sanctuaries. Oddly enough, I don’t recall hearing all this noise from the left about how this (very real) anarchy must be stopped.
To you guys, anything which increases the power of the left is good, and anything which threatens it is bad. You are whores to power, plain and simple.
You really need to look at economic history, not listen to “theory”.
As the dollar has gotten weaker our trade deficit has INCREASED, not DECREASED.
Next up, Rusty will be expounding on wave-particle duality as it pertains to dark energy, a subject he knows every bit as much about as constitutional law.
xler8bmw, it appears we have a misunderstanding. As noted before, yes, treaties need to be Constitutional. If a treaty banning handguns got by the Executive and legislative branches, the Judiciary could nix it.
My argument is that this treaty met constitutional muster. Others obviously disagree. However this is a question of enforcement. And making treaties unenforceable makes them useless which turns Article II on its head.
Just for giggles, does this mean the Texas National Guard can ignore our various treaties and invade Mexico? Because the SCOTUS ruling taken to its most unreasonable extreme suggests that this would be fine.
Gabe, you’re embarrassing yourself. Obviously, there are positive aspects to a weak dollar, but as has been pointed out a couple of times in this thread, a falling dollar is a NET NEGATIVE to our economy. You’re a one trick pony.
The reason the treaty can’t be enforced against that states is that it contradicted state law already in place. The Federal govt can’t enter into a treaty which forces a state to change existing law.
I don’t want to pound my chest and say I know my stuff because I’ll end up sounding like Gabe (who claims to have studied economics yet thinks a weak dollar is a net positive).
But I’m not as ignorant as you seem to think.
Also, you chided me about presenting my opinions as facts. And I agreed that that was obnoxious.
However, it’s not nearly as obnoxious as resorting to personal attacks to make a point. Plenty of people agree with me on this one. And plenty of people agree with you. Why don’t we stick to substantive matters instead of accusing me of ignorance and bad faith.
Why, given that it would be in accordance with “Article II”, which he insists trumps all other considerations and is itself part of the Constitition.
I know he would come up with some reason for saying it’s un-constitutional. But only because that is the result he wants to reach, not because he is following some consistent process of constitutional analysis.
Perhaps, this will convince Pres. Bush to stop pandering to Mexico and the Shamnesty crowd. I’m sure it won’t though.
Rusty I’m not misunderstanding anything. I went to school for this stuff.
It didn’t meet constitutional muster because the International Court CANNOT tell the US what it has to abide by. That is why we have Article 2.
Again, if you disagree go tell the Supreme Court judges they don’t know how to interpret the Constitution correctly!
Dang…and I was looking forward to Rusty’s take on wave-particle duality, too…
Dakine, can you back up that statement? Have you ever studied economics? Have you ever lived in another country and observed their economic system? I doubt you and Flenser ever have, which is why you have a poor understanding of economics.
Seriously, it is scary how many Americans know NOTHING about economics and get all their info about it from the liberal MSM.
Here is proof that a weak dollar is good for our economy:
Dakine,
Care to explain why France and Germany so badly want us to strengthen our dollar if strengthening it is good for our economy? You must think they selflessly want this for our own good?
Is there a Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics out there yet for Dakine and Flenser? If not, Regnery needs to publish one.
Under the Constitution a state can only wage war on it’s own when it such imminent danger that it can’t wait for the Federal govt to respond. IF Texas found itself in such danger, then yes the TXNG could invade Mexico… or anyone else who presented such a severe and immediate danger.
However, your belief that the US can’t invade or wage war against a nation just because we have a treaty with them is ridiculous. If a nation is presenting such a danger to the US that military action is required, that action will and should be taken regardless of any existing treaty.
When you are on-line, you are whatever you present yourself as. And you have presented yourself as a sterotypical liberal here on this topic. Stop doing that and I’ll stop pointing out your reliance on asserting your liberal convictions as incontrovertible fact in lieu of reasoned arguments.
This may be news to you, but this is conservative site. If having your liberal sensibilites skewered bothers you then you might want to frequent some other blogs. I hear there is a place called “Kos” which caters for people like you, and bans people like me on sight.
Rusty/Snausage:
I’ve got three words for ya:
BOO FREAKIN’ HOO!
Or a prosaic saying that Mrs. Malkin is famous for:
SUCK IT UP.
No. If a treaty goes through all of the Article II prerequisites and is still violated an amendment then it’ll get thrown out. But if a treaty goes through and a state doesn’t follow it because they don’t like it…then that state is violating the Constitution.
The crux of the argument is whether the Vienna Convention is constitutional. I say yes and you say no. SCOTUS didn’t decide that so we can argue all day and it won’t matter.
Federalism doesn’t work if states won’t abide by responsibilities given to the federal government in the Constitution. So if the treaty is Constitutional then, yes, Texas has to abide by international law. That international law was accepted by the federals and approved by the states.
Gabe
I’m on the opposite side from dakine. Just FYI.
I am enjoying the back and forth and that’s why I come here. I’m just asking you to keep it substantive.
And, ugh, I hate DailyKos. I much prefer the liberal blogs that don’t double as cults of personality.
So Rusty I guess all of the Supreme Court judges can’t interpret the constitution correctly.
Let me know when the president appoints you so you can them make the law of the land!
That seems to be YOUR argument. As usual, you are having your own private conversation with yourself. The Court did not address the issue of whether the treaty was or was not constitutional.
There you go again! This is getting tiresome. I really would appreciate it if you would cease and desist from this nonsense.
International law cannot trump Federal law. Federal law cannot trample on the lawful rights of either states or individuals. International law cannot do this things either. You hinted earlier that you were a lawyer. How is it possible that you can be unaware of this things if so? Or were you blowing smoke?
Well, I went and looked for myself, to see if this Vienna convention treaty had been ratified by Congress; and found mixed messages.
One site states that in 2002, it was announced that the U.S. was NOT going to ratify this treaty.
But, another site, listing several treaties, and their ratification status in ~ 190 countries, indicated that the U.S. HAD ratified (presumably the same one) this treaty in August of 1986.
How to decide which is correct?
A coin-flip?
I know that and agree with you on the main topic on this thread–about the Supreme Court decision.
I’m correcting Rusty’s following ignorant comment:
A weak dollar is GOOD for our economy. It boosts exports, the tourism industry, hotel industry, etc. It is probably what is saving our economy right now.
The fact that Sarkozy wants us to strengthen our dollar because French exports are being hurt by American competitiveness is proof of this economic fact:
A strong currency hurts a nation’s exports.
Yet there is so much economic ignorance out there.
Lots of great comments going back and forth here. I’m going to just take a shot in the dark and say that I think that the SCOTUS has a better understanding of whether or not this treaty is constitutional than any of our resident trolls here. Just guessin’.
I admit I breezed through some of the comments, so maybe someone has already brought up this arguement, but would this have played out differently if these felons had been in the country legally? I imagine a scenario where a legal resident is arrested, he immediately says, “I am a Mexican citizen.” Boom — consulate notified. However, here we have a situation where our guys are not even allowed to ask about immigration status. I think that all bets are off if someone is in a country illegally.
As for the question about whether or not we would be upset if an American was arrested and tried in another country without being told that he could notify the American consular officials… If s/he’s in the foreign country illegally, and is provided proper counsel, I’d say s/he’s fair game. You see, Americans recognize that other Americans can do bad things to each other, and if they are stupid enough to do so — and don’t have enough brains to contact the American government for help — they’re on their own. (I didn’t see anything about these illegals being prevented from contacting the Mexican government. So why didn’t they?)
flenser, I believe we are on the same side on the dollar issue. Gabe’s sole argument seems to be that if a weak dollar is bad for France and Germany, then it must be good for the US.
Gabe, I’ve lived and traveled all over the world, including South Korea.
Lan, good post…I wondered the same thing. Just to keep it real, three Supremes had another notion, so depends on whether you want to rely on the 6 in the majority or the 3 dissenters.
We live in a limited republic. Thankfully, the states cans till speak for themselves.
Down here in Texas, we happen to have been our own country, so we know how to speak for ourselves. We’ll continue to exercise our own Constitutional state’s rights, and if you don’t like it, then don’t move here.
If you’re here illegally… then don’t murder anyone.
They’re so used to just walking into our country and taking whatever they want, Medellin must have been surprised that a law was actually enforced against him (the pesky one about killing people).
Rusty,
One simple question.
Does the World Court, in your opinion, negate the states constitution?
If they ever manage to implant self-awareness into the liberal brains, heads will explode.
In the meantime, I eagerly await your first substantive comment on this matter.
“Treaties I think are constitutional are constitutional, and treaties I think are unconstitutional are unconstitutional” does not reach that level.
Yawn. Usual inane assertion. Stop it.
Also, it does seem as if any treaty which imposes international laws on states is at the least a Tenth Amendment violation. Jim wrote a thoughful comment. I’d like to see you respond in a “substantive” fashion rather than just saying “It isn’t”.
Your quote explained it – you just didn’t understand it. The aircraft industry (like the oil industry) is priced in dollars. A weakening dollar makes their product more expensive, ergo less competitive on the world market. Great for Boing (Yes, I know I misspelled it – remember the old Benny Hill skit) but bad for Airbus. A weak dollar is supposed to be good for the balance of trade. That doesn’t mean it’s good for the economy or the consumer, who must pay higher prices for imported goods (which includes pretty much everything anymore). I used the example of oil, but you apparently didn’t notice. If you want an example of the geopolitical aspects of a ruined currency, take a look at Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s and the impact on the rest of the world.
That’s from the synopsis of the decision. Basically it boils down to no “implementing legislation”. Which expalins why even a “liberal” would side with the majority.
Maybe he thought he was under the limit – after all, it took around 15 before we did in Resendiz.
Gabe,
I have lived outside the country and have studied economics at both the undergrad and graduate levels. The weak dollar helps some segments and yes, it’s nice that those segments are performing well at the time the rest of our economy isn’t. However, since our economy is global, the weak dollar has increased the cost of energy, which directly impacts food costs and over the longer term, other prices as well. If this trend continues, we will experience inflation. This is why the CPI is calculate as both with and without food and energy costs.
Again, you are right that there are benefits, but overall it is a net negative for the economy. Painting the economy with such a broad stroke is nearly impossible. If it were as simple as weak dollar good, strong dollar bad, there would be no need to spend much time studying the subject. There is no single factor that determines our economy. Period.
Whether a weak or strong dollar is good, or bad, for the economy is all based on whether there is a Net trade deficit or not.
As our own Federal Government is forcing us to import oil at historicly high rates, the drop of the dollar has really hurt the economy. It just plain costs more dollars to import the oil we need to keep the economy going.
Thus, a net trade deficit.
It also destroys peoples savings when compared to other currencys. Money in the bank is worth LESS than it once was.
It also makes it more possible for foreign Companies to buy into America… as their currency is worth more here…
And I might add, all therories aside, if you bother looking at the Worth of the dollar as compared to the trade deficit, your theory goes right out the window as Trade deficits have INCREASED as the dollar dropped.
When a theory does not support the facts, then the theory is flawed, no matter what a Newspaper article says…
Romeo13 + Concerned Citizen:
It has always been my basic, admittedly simplistic understanding that we should neither want a very weak, nor a very strong dollar.
Does that make sense?
Or libertarian theory in this case. Those guys are like the new communists with their rigid insistence on their theories being followed regardless of anything else.
George Mason is laughing his kiester off with this thread, wherever he may be!
Never heard of him? He’s the man that says the Supreme Court is right. He was there when the Constitution was ratified.
Well, no, because it’s subjective. What we SHOULD have is unregulated free trade, which would allow all the world’s currencies to reach their own proper levels. What we have is government interference, which distorts the process and causes most of the problems we have now.
Unfortunately, Fco, Mexico reneged on this unconstitutional treaty a while ago when it decided it no longer needed to provide for its citizens and started sending them to our country to become leeches. I don’t see your same cries for the countless American citizens kidnapped in border towns for the nice hefty ransoms drug gangs can get for them. Where were their Constitutional rights in this circumstance?
I guess, then, it wasn’t the brightest idea in the world to sign such an agreement in the first place. Does this treaty account for future changes in international relations between countries? Treaties apparently aren’t as static like libs want them to be (or what they want the Constitution to be).
This is a state’s rights issue… state’s rights will trump treaties (or any international agreement) if the state affected feels under duress. States aren’t like European provinces… they are their own entities and if some people don’t like it oops… I guess we shouldn’t have become a republic, huh?
How many countries actually signed this agreement? What happens to Americans in this circumstance in countries who didn’t sign it?
Another thing… why should we honor international agreements when the European community doesn’t their end? Let me see… not providing sufficient enought troops to NATO (an organization that we’re heavily supporting right now), not doing their fair share of support for the UN, constantly forcing us to join organizations like the World Court (where our troops would absolutely have no rights), or forcing us to sign on to something as stupid as the Kyoto Treaty which would curtail our economic development in favor of succoring Europe’s huge guilt trip.
Which one is more important to you, the Constitution’s interpretation of State’s Rights, or an international treaty signed 40 years ago but has never been updated for changing circumstances? I’ll cling to the Constitutional idea of States Rights vs. the international community’s idea of presidential powers.
I’d be interested to hear you explain WHY we should have this.
We’d still have problems, just different ones.
Yep, makes sense to me…
Problems develop when things tip too far one way, or the other, as they have now IMO.
Granite #177
Exactly!
Too strong of a dollar reduces exports and hurts tourism. It’s a balancing game.
Even then, there are other factors. Consumer confidence (That’s what the MSM is trying to damage so we’ll elect a Dem), employment levels, productivity, CPI, tax rates, and cost of credit are some of the other major players. They all have a balance as well. A little tipped in one direction and the whole economy grows or shrinks. Too far one way or the other and we end up having a correction. Just like now because of the low interest rates and increasing home values. Time for a correction.
On the subject of the Dollar… Everyone here is treating the symptom and not the disease. I saw that oil and food prices were mentioned as an example of dollar weakness. The reason that these commodities have gone the way they have is because the gov’t has allowed the sierra club (and others) to dictate energy policy. The US is not allowed to drill anywhere near our shores or on the “pristine” wilderness of ANWAR, where we have proven reserves that would dwarf Suadi Arabia. When you strangle out the supply, the prices for what is left goes through the roof. The same is to be said for food prices. To buy Iowa votes, we mandate that food be burned as the gas we will not refine. Now, with a drastic increase in demand in food for a stupid (and as the evidence comes in, more environmentally destructive than oil) reason, we are paying more for food.
Finally, The over-riding reason we are in the credit crunch (and the weakened dollar) we are now in is because the gov’t MANDATED that lenders give money to people they KNEW would be unable to pay. Surprising no one, they defaulted. we are now scrambling to fix what morons in congress have left us in the interest of “fairness” and the “environment”.
180 txvet2,
Without government intervention, the highs would be too high and the lows would be too low. They are supposed to act kind of like a shock absorber.
If you think that’s how it works you’re never going to get it. Again, step by step:
1. The Federal Constitution trumps Texas’s constitution. This is 100% fact. If there’s a disagreement, the feds win.
2. The Federal Constitution mandates that one branch, with the approval of another branch, to make treaties on behalf of the country.
3. Texas is part of America and one of the agents responsible for approving treaties.
4. Therefore, international treaties do in fact apply to Texas no matter what Texas’s state constitution says.
5. If a treaty is unconstitutional, the third branch is responsible for overturning it.
6. The decision today states that there is no way to judicially enforce constitutional treaties if a state decides to break them. This is both good (SCOTUS > World Courts) and very, very bad. (All treaties are now basically useless since our word is as good as 50 good faith actors. Texas has proven itself to be a bad faith actor. No one is arguing that Texas did not in fact break the treaty.)
7. If treaties are useless, a solid portion of Article II has been gutted.
Ok. There. I laid that out as reasonably as possible. I didn’t get into the reprecussions of the decision since this has evolved into a strictly constitutional argument.
I would much appreciate it if someone could please lay out where my case is wrong or how their reasoning works in a similarly respectful fashion.
I agree with Fco in that the constitutionality of the treaty provisions in question isn’t the real issue, as much as what the administration tried to do to “comply” with it.
A little background can help to clarify the significance of the Court’s decision.
1. When it came to raising the Vienna Convention as a ground for appealing his trial court conviction, Medellin blew it because he didn’t raise the argument or objection during his trial (in legalese, this is called “preserving the argument”). Therefore, the state appeals court properly refused to consider that argument when he tried to raise it for the first time on appeal.
2. The Federal district court Medellin resorted to after that not only upheld the state court concerning the failure to preserve the argument, but also concluded that the failure to allow consular access wasn’t “prejudicial error” in that it didn’t affect the merits of the case or the validity of the verdict.
3. Medellin then appealed to the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeal,which denied the appeal on other grounds (i.e., it held that the Vienna Convention doesn’t confer any individually-enforceable rights).
4. This is about the same time that the International Court of Justice tried to intervene via its holding in the Avena case, demanding that Texas give Medellin another hearing and/or trial without regard to the state’s procedural default rules – which rules otherwise bar successive habeas corpus-based appeals.
5. Relying on Avena, and the Bush Administration’s independent claim of authority to enforce that decision, Medellin appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The question before the Court was whether the Avena decision was, being based on the Vienna Convention, automatically enforceable as a matter of Texas state law; and more importantly whether as a consequence that decision trumped the state’s prohibition on successive habeas corpus appeals. The Court held, in relevant part:
As to the Bush Administration’s attempt to enforce Avena on its own, the court held:
Bottom line is, this case doesn’t raise Article II treaty obligation issues as much as legal procedural ones:
- If Medellin had raised the Vienna Convention angle at his trial, he could have preserved the argument for appeal but it wouldn’t have helped him, because (1) he had no individual right to appeal based on that convention to begin with, and (2) the fact that he didn’t get to consult with Mexican consular officials made no difference in reaching his murder conviction – no prejudicial error.
- The administration’s legal reasoning underlying its attempt to enforce Avena tried to over-extend the applicability of other legal precedents allowing for executive enforcement of a non self-executing treaty in the absence of enforcing legislation.
Doesn’t sound as sexy this way, but from a legal perspective we shouldn’t over-estimate the significance of this ruling.
Other nations are sovereign just as the United States is sovereign. They have their laws and US citizens visiting that country are and should be subject to their laws and their system of justice. If you don’t like their system, don’t visit. When in Rome…
Actually I think it’s pretty significant that the decisions of international or foreign courts are not automatically enforceable in the US absent legislation to make them enforceable. It IS a sovereignty issue.
I swear, you are being intentionally obtuse. International treaties apply to the states only if Congress passes and the President signs laws which do just that, seperate from any treaty ratification.
Here’s a novel idea: why don’t you use this thing called “the internet” to read up on the matter before you bore us to tears with your opinions? You might find something like this -
Or this -
he author of these words knows a good deal more about the law than you do.
Thank you, Regulus.
So I guess the new question is: If independent laws need to be passed to enforce a treaty, doesn’t that give the House of Representatives a great deal of power in the treaty making process?
Since the treaty itself (as opposed to the enforcement law) was created by the Executive and approved by the Senate, let’s assume they also agree on an enforcement law. That leaves the whole kit and kaboodle in the hands of the House. If they agree, the treaty lives. If not, it dies.
Isn’t that counter-intuitive to Article II? I think in following their logic the Court completely missed the Constitutional ramifications of their decision. Adding another layer to the formation of treaties is quite dramatic.
Rusty you seem to be getting confused on the constitutional issue. It’s really not an issue whether it unconstitutional. Again, please read article II and VI again and if you don’t understand go get a constitutional attorney who can explain it to you!
“… 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.”
Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!
Flenser, I got the same thing from Regulus in a much nicer way. I completely understand the majority decision while still thinking it’s wrong for reasons described in comment 191.
Impossible in this forum. I’ve already tried writing several responses, and they all run into hundreds of words and that’s just the warmup. After all, you go to college for up to four years or longer to cover all this. Let me just say that the world market is just the aggregate of you trading your lawnmower for the neighbor’s bicycle. If you both feel you’ve received fair value, you make the trade. Otherwise, no trade. The weak dollar makes the rest of the world feel they aren’t getting fair value for their product, so they demand more and more. The more and more comes from the American consumer in the form of increased prices for imports. Since the US is the most prosperous country in the world, we consume the most – that is, we buy more than we sell to less prosperous countries. That’s what the trade imbalance is all about, not the strength or weakness of currencies. The government interferes in the free market by means of currency manipulation, interest rate fluctuations, regulation, and not least, price supports and subsidies. All of these have a cost to the market, and most result in reciprocal action on the part of other governments.
I know this is oversimplified, but you can’t pack 6-8 semesters into one post.
I do understand. I think we’re caught in a Catch-22 here. The decision protects our sovereignty…at the expense of our Constitution. I would prefer what was until quite recently the status quo.