Posted on 10/11/2007 8:47:11 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
WASHINGTON — President Bush and Texas, the state he once led, were on opposite sides of a Supreme Court dispute today over the role of international law and claims of executive power in the case of a Mexican on death row for rape and murder in Houston.
The justices engaged in a spirited discussion of who gets the final say in whether Texas courts must give Jose Ernesto Medellin a new hearing because local police never notified Mexican diplomats that he had been arrested, in violation of an 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Bush has gone off the deep end on this. His side says they won’t ask for this again. Hah, he will if Mexico tells him to.
But Texas didn't, Baby Ruth. Ever hear of federalism?
How are police supposed to notify the consul when many communities are “sanctuary” cities and the police can’t ask about immigration status? It seems that if they rule in favor of this rapist/murderer then we can no longer have “sanctuary” cities.
Mexican activists have saying they "own" the United States Southwest. Therefore they have no claim of being abroad. Unless they're cross dressers.
By agreeing to hear the case? They should have punted it saying that it was a state matter.
>> How are police supposed to notify the consul when many communities are “sanctuary” cities and the police can’t ask about immigration status? It seems that if they rule in favor of this rapist/murderer then we can no longer have “sanctuary” cities.
I think it’s about time you gave up this fantasy of expecting logical consistency and well-reasoned opinions from the Left, don’t you?
The Supremes haven’t ruled yet. If they overturn this conviction, we might as well kiss our national sovereignty goodbye and start kissing the a** of the international “tribunes” that can overrule American law. Hint, these “tribunals” have never heard of the Second Amendment.
After reading the person their Miranda rights they could add on somethng like this: "If you are a citizen of another country you are entitled to speak with that country's consulate."
Father of Murdered Girl Questions Bush’s Support to Halt Killer’s Execution
[snip]The father of a 14-year-old Texas girl who was raped, sodomized and then strangled with a belt and shoe laces, wants to know why President Bush supports halting the execution of the Mexican national who confessed to killing his daughter and her friend.
“Our daughters are just pawns in a game that we have no control over,” Randy Ertman, father of Jennifer Ertman, told FOX News. “What can I say to the president of the United States or the Supreme Court that would make any difference?”
Jennifer Ertman, 14, and her classmate, Elizabeth Pena, 16, were brutally raped and killed in 1993 after stumbling upon a gang. Jose “Joe” Ernesto Medellin, who was born in Mexico but spent much of his childhood in Texas, confessed to the killings and was sentenced to death. But 14 years later, Medellin still sits in a Texas prison cell as the White House argues that his conviction was flawed because Houston police failed to tell him of his right to seek help from the Mexican consulate.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether the president has the power to order Texas state court to comply with the International Court’s decision. The court will clarify presidential, congressional and court powers and what powers remain with the federal government versus the states.
“It is inexplicable that the president of the United States, our former governor, would turn his back on the families and on these victims and side with the world court and the Mexican government,” said Dianne Clements, president of Houston’s Justice for All, a criminal justice reform organization.
Texas executed 152 inmates while Bush was governor.
Ertman said he feels betrayed by Bush’s decision. Ertman shook Bush’s hand when he was running for president, asking him if he remembered the girls and if he would keep their killers on death row. Bush said he would keep them on death row, Ertman said.
“He shook my hand and lied,” Ertman said.
A California-based legal group filed a court brief on behalf of the family of one of the victims in support of upholding the death sentence for Medellin.
“The big battle is going to be over whether or not Bush’s memo requires state courts to apply the rules of the treaty,” said Michael Rushford, a spokesman of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300686,00.html
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wondered whether American courts could hand the ultimate decision to a foreign court. "I'm rather jealous of that power," Scalia said. "I don't know on what basis we can allow some international court to decide what is the responsibility of this court, which is the meaning of the United States law."You won't get this kind of thinking from any judges Hillary! appoints. They will all be EuroMarxists who will force us to knuckle under to the will and the whims of international socialists at every opportunity.
It’s quite explicable, Mr. Ertman.
Federalism only applies to powers reserved to the states because they are not granted in the Constitution to the federal government nor prohibited by it to the states. The Constitution specifically states that treaties are on equal footing with federal laws and the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land" and cannot be overridden by the states.
Of course that does not necessarily mean that the international court was correct in its finding that the state of Texas violated the terms of the treaty. If the rapist/murderer scum did not request assistance from the Mexican consulate then Texas didn't deny it. The best (only) way to argue this case is that the actions or inactions by thee state of Texas did not constitute a violation of the treaty. To try to argue that Texas didn't have to abide by the treaty is a losing argument.
The president refuses to help the two border agents but he has no problem helping a filthy pig who raped and murdered innocent girls. I lost all respect for this president who is nothing more than a puppet of Mexico.Why are we fighting wars overseas if the government is selling us out at home?
How to Contact The President
http://www.ehow.com/how_3425_contact-president.html
After reading the person their Miranda rights they could add on something like this: “If you are a citizen of another country you are entitled to speak with that country’s consulate.”
I still think that in many communities you would have the fight of your life with the pro illegal groups. The case involves the fact that the police did not contact the diplomats in order for the police to contact the consul the need to be informed of a perps immigration status. Even if they allow your “miranda” for immigrants- their status will be known by police and lawyers. Sanctuary cities will be concerned that the minute a perp talks to their consul a police official will call INS.
They can have access to whoever they want. All they have to do is use their phone call to call the embassy, or have their public defender contact the embassy.
Just because we didn't remind them to call their embassy is no reason to assume we took their rights to do so.
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.