Say Anything Blog

There goes the kingdom.

What is your problem with this decision?  Do you think the President should be able to order state courts on how to rule?

.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Ews48,

Watching you and others on the Left trying, mostly in vain, to play political “gotcha” with this president is an exhilarating and amusing way to pass some time, and this seems as good a time as any to thank you for such a predictably pleasant, on-going distraction.

A case in point is this ruling which you dutifully trumpet to be a resounding defeat for Mr. Bush.  It is hardly that!  Though you wouldn’t understand that unless you’d read the entire story of this case.  A more detailed account can be found here:

Jose Medellin, an illiegal gangbanger was convicted in Texas of rape, torture, and murder, based on a confession he gave after being advised of his Miranda rights.

The victims were abused for an hour, then killed to prevent them from identifying their tormentors. Mr. Medellin strangled one girl with her shoelaces, the trial revealed.

He was arrested five days later, and signed a confession after being given his Miranda rights. Crucially, however, the law enforcement authorities neglected to tell him of his right under the Vienna Convention to notify Mexican diplomats of his detention.

Mr. Medellin’s conviction and sentence were upheld in the Texas courts despite the 2004 finding by the World Court, and the Supreme Court concluded on Tuesday that President Bush had no authority to order the state courts to reverse themselves, no matter what the World Court said.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that neither the defendant nor his supporters “have identified a single nation that treats I.C.J. judgments as binding in domestic courts.” (The World Court is formally known as the International Court of Justice.)

The Supreme Court ruling acknowledged that President Bush, in pressing Texas to take another look at the Medellin case, was acting on behalf of the “plainly compelling interests” of fostering observance of the Vienna Convention and trying to maintain good relations with other countries.

However, the ruling added, “The president’s authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, ‘must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.’ ” The language cited was from a 1952 ruling in which the high court found that President Harry S. Truman did not have the authority to have the federal government seize and run steel mills.

In other words, Mr. Bush, who as Governor of Texas did not once grant clemency to a convicted murderer, was acting as President (and a liberal-style internationalist) in setting this up and “trying” to have the Texas state authorities abide by the ruling of the so-called “World Court.” What actually happened is that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, with this ruling as precedent, has effectively banned World Court rulings from having any bearing on domestic US or state judicial proceedings.  Future World Court edicts on such subjects as global warming or the death penalty, are effectively made moot by the Roberts Court actions here.

You may continue to see this as a “defeat” for President Bush, but a more informed and less simple-minded view of the situation, and the President who was once the unacknowledged poker ace of Harvard, would be that for the price of a few silly, uninformed headlines, including yours, Mr. Bush won again, getting exactly the results he wanted.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

What actually happened is that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, with this ruling as precedent, has effectively banned World Court rulings from having any bearing on domestic US or state judicial proceedings.

Ihe State of Texas’s position appears to be that the accused took too long to invoke his right to contact the Mexican consulate. How long is too long is always debatable but I hope that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t mean that the United States isn’t obligated to comply with treaties the World Court believes should be complied with.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeAdamson opines:

I hope that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t mean that the United States isn’t obligated to comply with treaties the World Court believes should be complied with.

It means exactly that.

Absent a ratified treaty AND enabling legislation, the opinions of the ICJ/World Court’s opinions are not only non-binding, they are un-enforceable absent specific enabling legislation.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

MikeA:  Last time I looked, the United States was a sovereign nation.  The Roberts court did exactly the right thing.

Only by signed treaty, are we obligated under international or extra-national law, and then only to the extent as defined by the treaty document.

[Which helps to explain why the democrats whine about the Kyoto Accords, but neither they nor President Clinton would sign it.]

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

What is your problem with this decision?  Do you think the President should be able to order state courts on how to rule?

I don’t want to open this can of worms again, but when the United States through enabling legislation in Congress enters into an International Treaty, no state judge or state court may make any ruling contrary to the federal treaty involved. While the Constitution has absolute rule and all such treaties must pass Constitutional muster, once approved that treaty becomes part of our federal law and is not subject to any changes at any state or local judicial level and must be enforced.

I believe Bush was asserting that principle of law, and the Court seeming to disagree with their previous decisions are saying something contrary. In either case, I do not believe they were making a personal rebuke to President Bush nor was he interferring with local courts.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

pp

Only by signed treaty, are we obligated under international or extra-national law, and then only to the extent as defined by the treaty document.

The Yahoo story says that the US signed the treaty.

RG

It means exactly that.

Then I suppose nations should be careful when they sign treaties with America. I’m not sure what’s given rise to this trend of complying with treaties when convenient but it places the US in some dubious company.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

MikeA:  Interesting.  Can you provide me a link to the Yahoo story?

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

“As a conservative, I will not be overly enthusiastic about voting for John McCain on November 4 - but I will be sprinting to the polling place to do so!”
Matthew May, conservative commentator, The American Spectator

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations makes it mandatory that foreign nationals (even illegal ones) be afforded the opportunity to contact their consulate. 

However this has not been treated the same as the right to counsel.  As of four years ago (last time I was familiar with it) our State Departments view was that this was the right of the country, not the arestee.  Therefore, the remedy was to apologize to the country, not the arrestee.  However, I believe the World Court, which has the authority to interpret treaty obligations, has disagreed with this view.  I am not sure where the current state of our law stands in this regards.

Hawk,

I believe the last word from the ICJ was Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex v. US) found here.

The last word from the US Supreme Court, the Medellin case stupidly referred to as a “defeat” for Mr. Bush, is referenced above.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

pp...ews has the link in the original post.

"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced if the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
Cicero, 55 BC

Hawk,

Although it is not directly pertinent, I noticed in reading the Avena file that not one mention is made by either the US or Mexico, nor by the ICJ itself in its ruling, of any effort by anyone to stem the tide of illegals flooding this country from Mexico.

Meanwhile, Pedro Espinoza, a 19 year old illegal gangbanger is charged with the shooting death 3 weeks ago of high school football star Jamiel Shaw the next day after being released by Los Angeles authorities on a weapons possession charge.  LA is a so-called “sanctuary city” according to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Mike, pp,

The NYT story linked in my first comment on this thread is much more detailed… though hardly any more insightful.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I don’t know about 2004. But it seems to me that until a couple years ago not many law enforcement agencies were aware of the policy of having aliens consult with their embassies. At any rate this scum should fry. To let him get by with this horrific crime would be a grave miscarriage of justice.

I don’t know about 2004. But it seems to me that until a couple years ago not many law enforcement agencies were aware of the policy of having aliens consult with their embassies.

Yes they are.  They may not allow it, but they are aware of it.