Posted on 11/16/2006 3:10:33 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
Texas can proceed with the execution of a death row inmate notwithstanding a ruling by an international tribunal and a memorandum from President Bush directing state courts to comply with the tribunal’s decision, Texas’ highest court for criminal matters ruled yesterday.
“We hold that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary,” Judge Michael Keasler wrote for the court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
The case, which has been considered by the United States Supreme Court, appears quite likely to return there.
In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that 51 Mexicans on death row in the United States were entitled to “review and reconsideration” of their claims that their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations had been violated.
The convention requires that arrested foreigners be told of their right to speak with consular officials. If asked, local officials must contact the appropriate consulate. Both actions, the convention says, must be taken “without delay.”
The international court added that American courts performing the required review and reconsideration could not rely on a doctrine known as procedural default to decline to hear arguments not raised at trial. That is at odds with recent death penalty jurisprudence in the United States and with state and federal laws that limit what kinds of arguments may be made if they are not raised early on.
When the question of whether the international tribunal’s ruling must be followed reached the United States Supreme Court last year, President Bush issued a memorandum to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales directing state courts to abide by the decision of the tribunal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Even though he came here illegally, he still receives the same rights and protections under the treaties we agree to with Mexico by virtue of his birthright.
Much like an American smuggler would still be afforded the protection iof his citizenship.
Some states have no death penalty, so you'd be talking an equal protection issue with that position.
Asked & answered. Read through the thread.
"Some states have no death penalty, so you'd be talking an equal protection issue with that position."
The fed has the death penalty as do many states. No equal rights that I can see. Hang 'em High (with all due respect to Clint).
I rest my case. All you have is hysteria and BS. I used to be one of you guys. When I actually examined his proposal, the issues, and the accusations, I realized that he deserved much better then the cr@p he gets rake through by the "BORDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" crowd on a regular basis.
And no, immigration is not issue numero uno in the American consciousness. Not by a long shot. Is it important? Yes. Are the majority of AMericans concerned about it? No.
I knew you were gonna point that out, but I had to give it a shot anyway. LOL If the American was offered no consulate services before conviction, thereby being deprived of the most vigorous defense possible, the US should quietly accept the verdict of the foreign court?
Ever notice that there are not many cases of American Smugglers being tried in Mexico? Americans turn up dead if the ransom is not paid. Our laws are not a suicide pact. I have traveled internationally. We were told to obey all of the local laws. Consular contact is primarily so that they will know where to send your remains and personal effects.
bump
That was addressed in the ruling.
I'd like to think that you two kneejerkers might not rant on so mindlessly if you read the unanimous ruling. Even the concurring judge who most agrees with the international court supports the ruling.
You can find it here by the way: http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/docketsearch.asp
"the US should quietly accept the verdict of the foreign court?"
Good question but if the country does not have a history of human rights violations, I say, if the perp did the crime he must do the time. I recall caning in Singapore?
If we were knee-jerking, it was in response to the knee-jerkers here who can't wait to make PResidential duties an impeachable offense.
Just because other nations are savage hell holes that have little regard for laws and decency, doesn't mean we should imitate them.
If?
I confess I've more sympathy for kneejerkers who don't want to amend the Constitution by treaty (or presidential memo!) instead of through Article V procedures.
What dangerous idiocy it was to submit to the ICJ, even though they weren't given power to enforce remedies. Thank God their attempt to prey on our state courts because they perceived them as weaker than the feds ended that.
But.......but.......I thought President Bush said we wouldn't belong to any international courts? < / sarcasm > Shredding our Constitution with all of his global dreams is criminal, IMO, but the little Bush bots will still lick his boots. Unbelievable!
He didn't subvert anything. It's about upholding treaties the US are signatories to.
Bush has want an open border with mexico since before his first election. The attack on 9-11 put a hold on that and now he has his first real chance of getting it.
Perhaps the sovereignty of the U.S. is not a priority for you and others but it is to some. Those that don't believe in our sovereignty have either a personal stake or are products of the public schools that teach that nationalism is a bad thing.
So he went about it by talking loudly about it and planning to come up with a comprehensive progrram which includes a physical wall, cameras, infrared, UAVs, and other tools to help enforcemnet.
Most people wouldn't even be talking about immigration if hedidn't come up with his proposals. And if he really wants the borders to stay open, all he has to do is keep his mouth shut. The majority of Americans wouldn't be the wiser and certainly many FReepers wouldn't be able to criticize him.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Knee jerk? Me?
Funny the way a memo can be spun.
The Bush administration has adopted a curious approach to issues of democratic rights and international law. If an international statute conflicts with its aims, it devises some method of defying it. In this spirit, the Bush administration has struck yet another blow in its worldwide crusade for democracy and freedom, summarily withdrawing from an international agreement that enforces the basic democratic right of foreign nationals to speak to consular officers when they are accused of a crime, including those that carry the death penalty. More than 100 inmates from 30 countries currently sit on death row in the United States.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/icj-m11.shtml
When you find yourself agreeing with socialists, but from the opposite sides of the very same issue, kinda makes me wonder.
He's just becoming ever more bolder increasingly in anti-American intentions it would seem.
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.