Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS Tells Foreign Court to Butt Out
HumanEvents.com ^ | 04/01/2008 | Ted Cruz

Posted on 04/01/2008 1:47:29 PM PDT by K-oneTexas

SCOTUS Tells Foreign Court to Butt Out by Ted Cruz

Over the past few years many Americans have become deeply concerned that judges have begun relying more and more on foreign law to decide questions of U.S. constitutional law. One doesn’t have to be a constitutional scholar to object to foreign laws and foreign courts -- laws that are not enacted by our democratic government and judges who are not selected as our Constitution provides -- ruling on Americans’ rights and the powers of American government. These concerns are largely well founded, and reflect the increasing degree to which modern constitutional adjudication has become altogether unmoored from the text and original understanding of the Framers.

Yet an even bigger issue was before the Supreme Court this Term. In Medellín v. Texas, the issue was not simply whether U.S. judges should consult foreign law to guide their decision-making; instead, the central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the United Nations’ World Court has the legal authority to bind the courts of the United States. In other words, the issue was whether decisions of the World Court are superior to those of the Supreme Court, and whether Americans will be governed by the decisions of foreign judges in The Hague.

Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right.

The case began fifteen years ago, when two teenage girls were brutally gang-raped and murdered in northwest Houston, just a few blocks from where I attended church as a child. All six gang members were caught, convicted, and unanimously sentenced to death (except for one who was too young to be eligible for capital punishment). Now approaching two decades after this horrific crime, only one gang member has so far had his sentence carried out.

Another of the gang members, Jose Ernesto Medellín, has seen his case become an international cause célèbre, making it all the way to the World Court and twice to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last week, in a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected all of Medellín’s claims and paved the way for the victims’ grieving families to finally see justice. But the issues in Medellín v. Texas extend well beyond this one confessed murderer.

Medellin argued that the U.S. Supreme Court was bound by the World Court, and that the World Court had already decided he deserved a new trial. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically concluded that the World Court has no such authority. That decision was correct because the Constitution doesn’t grant foreign courts any authority over U.S. courts, and it was critical to preserving our Nation’s fundamental sovereignty.

How on earth did this Texas murder case get to the World Court? Well, in 2003, the nation of Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (the formal name of the World Court), which is the judicial arm of the United Nations. And, in 2004, the World Court ruled for Mexico.

Mexico’s suit was filed on behalf of 51 Mexican nationals, including Medellín, all of whom were convicted murderers on death row throughout the United States. Our southern neighbor argued, correctly, that these Mexican nationals had a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs (a treaty ratified by the United States in 1969) to contact their local Mexican consulates for assistance. As a result -- even though the suit raised no questions concerning the proven guilt of these 51 murderers -- Mexico sought to have all of their convictions annulled.

The problem was that most of the 51, including Medellín, had failed to raise any Vienna Convention claims at trial, and the usual rule in American criminal law is that if you fail to raise a claim at trial, that claim is forfeited.

Not overly concerned with the usual rules of criminal law in the United States, the World Court agreed with Mexico across the board and issued a remarkable ruling: it “ordered” the United States to reconsider the convictions and death sentences of all 51 convicted murderers.

The World Court ruling was unprecedented. In over 200 years of our Nation’s history, no foreign tribunal has ever before asserted the authority to bind U.S. courts, much less to reopen final criminal convictions. And, armed with the decision of the World Court, Medellín argued that American courts had no option but to obey.

Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the World Court decision cannot be enforced in U.S. courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision was a victory for the State of Texas, but, even more importantly, it was a victory for the American people. Medellín’s argument -- which three Justices on the Court would have largely adopted -- would fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of our Nation.

The United States Constitution vests sovereignty in the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the President, the fifty States, and ultimately, in We the People. Had Medellín prevailed, American sovereignty and independence would have been gravely undermined.

If Medellín had prevailed, it would have elevated the World Court above the Supreme Court of the United States, given that foreign court binding authority, and made its far-away judges the final arbiters of the law that governs American citizens.

Nobody disputes that the United States should comply with treaty obligations, and both the federal and state governments have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure foreign nationals are notified of their rights under the Vienna Convention. But that is not a reason to disturb the convictions of unquestionably guilty murderers.

Jose Ernesto Medellín voluntarily confessed, in writing, and bragged about raping and killing these young girls as they pleaded for their lives. A jury of his peers unanimously sentenced him to death, and the families of the girls he murdered have waited far too long to see that sentence carried out.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the victims’ families won’t have to wait much longer for justice to be served.

And, just as importantly, the Court resoundingly concluded that, under our Constitution, the World Court lacks the authority to bind our state and federal courts. That ruling will protect our Nation’s sovereignty and independence for generations to come.


Mr. Cruz is the Solicitor General of Texas. He argued and won Medellin v. Texas before the Supreme Court of the United States.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: globalism; medelln; robertscourt; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 04/01/2008 1:47:29 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

And Jorge too!!


2 posted on 04/01/2008 1:48:21 PM PDT by misterrob (Obama-Does America Need Another Jimmy Carter?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Which 3 bone-head Justices were in the minority?????


3 posted on 04/01/2008 1:49:53 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
That was my question.

My guess?

Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter.

4 posted on 04/01/2008 1:51:42 PM PDT by allmendream ("A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal."NapoleonD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas
There's only one proper path here folks...


5 posted on 04/01/2008 1:52:09 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (New Europe, John Benedict Arnold McCain's bridge to 07/03/1776. Not even our past is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Imagine that. Just as the US once fought a revolutionary war to keep the king from running the show we now have the cajones to do the same again. SARC

Note that the sniveling progressive liberals are ready to relinquish our sovereignty at no cost to foreign despots. We could have another Hussein telling US citizens what to do and how to live and die.


6 posted on 04/01/2008 1:52:36 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Who voted against the decision?


7 posted on 04/01/2008 1:54:10 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Scratch Kennedy. He was correct on this one. Add Breyer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/25/ST2008032502998.html

Joining Roberts were the justices who are most consistently conservative: Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice John Paul Stevens concurred, but for different reasons than Roberts gave. Stevens agreed that Texas could not be forced to reconsider the case but urged it to do so nonetheless, especially because its failure to advise Medell¿n of his rights “ensnared the United States in the current controversy.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had misread the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which says properly ratified treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land” and that the treaties at issue did not need to be implemented by congressional legislation. “As a result, the nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the contrary,” Breyer wrote. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.

8 posted on 04/01/2008 1:54:19 PM PDT by allmendream ("A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal."NapoleonD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
Usual suspects. Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter.

I do not wish them health or long life.

9 posted on 04/01/2008 1:56:25 PM PDT by allmendream ("A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal."NapoleonD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Kerry’s fault


10 posted on 04/01/2008 1:58:10 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Never say never (there'll be a VP you'll like))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I do not wish them health or long life.

I only wish them a swift and long retirement ...

11 posted on 04/01/2008 1:58:34 PM PDT by clamper1797 (It would be insane to vote for Hussein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I was surprised that Justice Stevens voted correctly. A rare moment of intelligence by a Liberal Justice. Hopefully, this case will lead to the overruling of Holland v. Missouri (which allows the Congress to expand its authority via treaties). The Justices have ruled that the President can't circumvent the Constitution via a treaty. Now the Court should apply the same ruling to the Congress (and itself).
12 posted on 04/01/2008 2:02:16 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas
I would gladly concede that people like those who were convicted in this case should be subject to international law that supersedes U.S. law on the matter.

However, this would only make sense if a bunch of Mexican gang members arrested for heinous crimes like this in the U.S. were treated as they should . . . as FOREIGN INVADERS and PRISONERS OF WAR -- not "ordinary" criminals.

Every case like this should be tried before a military tribunal, not in a U.S. criminal court.

13 posted on 04/01/2008 2:02:50 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

Note: 3 justices believe we need foreign rules.


14 posted on 04/01/2008 2:50:30 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

There are still 3 idiots on the Supreme Court

It should have been 9-0


15 posted on 04/01/2008 2:53:15 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

U.S. Out of the U.N.

And three “Justices” out of the U.S.


16 posted on 04/01/2008 3:07:36 PM PDT by ApplegateRanch (God wants a Liberal or RINO hanging from every tree. Tar & feathers optional extras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Just off the bench and into a nursing home.


17 posted on 04/01/2008 3:12:53 PM PDT by tbw2 ("Sirat: Through the Fires of Hell" by Tamara Wilhite - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

1.Ginsburg 2.Breyer 3.Souter. I’d bet money on it if I were a betting person.


18 posted on 04/01/2008 3:15:35 PM PDT by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ApplegateRanch

Bingo


19 posted on 04/01/2008 3:19:08 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (New Europe, John Benedict Arnold McCain's bridge to 07/03/1776. Not even our past is safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

and now a treaty is being drafted to accomplish what the USSC said can’t be done.


20 posted on 04/01/2008 3:21:54 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson