Posted on 03/25/2008 8:59:13 AM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
WASHINGTON - President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to reopen the case of 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. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
The international court judgment should be enforced, Breyer wrote. "The nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word," he said.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome of the case, said nothing prevents Texas from giving Medellin another hearing even though it is not compelled to do so.
"Texas' duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that — by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention — ensnared the United States in the current controversy," Stevens said.
Medellin was arrested a few days after the killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in June 1993. He was told he had a right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police did not tell him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate.
Medellin, who speaks, reads and writes English, gave a written confession. He was convicted of murder in the course of a sexual assault, a capital offense in Texas. A judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.
Texas acknowledged that Medellin was not told he could ask for help from Mexican diplomats, but argued that he forfeited the right because he never raised the issue at trial or sentencing. In any case, the state said, the diplomats' intercession would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case.
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. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
The international court judgment should be enforced, Breyer wrote. "The nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word," he said.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome of the case, said nothing prevents Texas from giving Medellin another hearing even though it is not compelled to do so.
"Texas' duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that — by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention — ensnared the United States in the current controversy," Stevens said.
Medellin was arrested a few days after the killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in June 1993. He was told he had a right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police did not tell him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate.
Medellin, who speaks, reads and writes English, gave a written confession. He was convicted of murder in the course of a sexual assault, a capital offense in Texas. A judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.
Texas acknowledged that Medellin was not told he could ask for help from Mexican diplomats, but argued that he forfeited the right because he never raised the issue at trial or sentencing. In any case, the state said, the diplomats' intercession would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case.
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. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
The international court judgment should be enforced, Breyer wrote. "The nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word," he said.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome of the case, said nothing prevents Texas from giving Medellin another hearing even though it is not compelled to do so.
"Texas' duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that — by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention — ensnared the United States in the current controversy," Stevens said.
Medellin was arrested a few days after the killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in June 1993. He was told he had a right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police did not tell him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate.
Medellin, who speaks, reads and writes English, gave a written confession. He was convicted of murder in the course of a sexual assault, a capital offense in Texas. A judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.
Texas acknowledged that Medellin was not told he could ask for help from Mexican diplomats, but argued that he forfeited the right because he never raised the issue at trial or sentencing. In any case, the state said, the diplomats' intercession would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case.
State and federal courts rejected Medellin's claim when he raised it on appeal.
Then, in 2003, Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice in The Hague on behalf of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row in the U.S. who also had been denied access to their country's diplomats following their arrests.
Mexico has no death penalty. Mexico and other opponents of capital punishment have sought to use the court, also known as the World Court, to fight for foreigners facing execution in the U.S.
Forty-four Mexican prisoners affected by the decision remain on death row around the country, including 14 in Texas. One Mexican inmate formerly facing execution now is imprisoned for life because of the Supreme Court decision outlawing capital punishment for anyone under 18 at the time the crime was committed.
Bush has since said the United States will no longer allow the World Court to judge the consular access cases because of how death penalty opponents have tried to use the international tribunal.
The case is Medellin v. Texas, 06-984.
Ooops! I apologize for cutting and pasting and pasting and pasting.
Imagine how long the "Miranda" warning would become if it had to include every conceivable piece of legal advice, including a phrase to the effect, "....and if you are an illegal alien you have the right to request assistance from your native country's consulate....".
Where would it end?
I tried what you did in a paper I did back in High School, and I got reamed for it...
;^)
Thanks for the story.
Roberts actually just set precedent for situations where an Executive Order is contrary to state law. It has been an open question for some time, but until I read the decision I think this is what it stands for. I agree with it too. A POTUS should not be able to override state law with an EO.
You’re not seeing triple. I’m having a dopey, dopey, dopey day.
Could you offer some clarification on this?
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.
Disagreed with which decision? ‘It’ must be carried out by state courts?
Again, I’m having a triple case of dopey today. Pardon me.
Basically, Bush agrees with the court's finding, but was forced to ask humbly for the state to recognize international law.
He just violated one of his own principles, and we've grown quite used to it here at FR...
(I was just giving you the business on the cut 'n' paste.)
The headline could have read “Bush defeats Bush.”
It was the good Bush who appointed Roberts and Alito and made this decision possible, against the minority vote of the usual suspects: “Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.”
It was the bad Bush who intervened on behalf of his good pal the President of Mexico, and argued that international law should trump Texas law.
Fortunately, the good Bush won the day. But it reminds us, once again, how important it is to have decent judges on SCOTUS.
How that can continue to be, with three leftist losers running for president, I don’t know. We could see the court tip hard left for another generation. I think we need to pray for a good outcome, although how that might come about, I just don’t know. Hildabeast? Holy Hussein? McCain/Kennedy/Feingold? We need some divine intervention.
I’m sorry. I looked up Court backs Texas and didn’t find anything, so I posted it. I apologize.
Ok, but, in the future...
This SCOTUS ruling now appears to me to mean that the Federal goverment can sign international treaties, but the State governments are under no obligation to follow them and that no Executive Order can compel the States to do so. It is a victory for States’ Rights. But it also undermines the federal government’s ability to complete international agreements. What foreign nation will trust the U.S. will agree to its word when the individual states have no obligation to follow international treaties?
From a Houstonian who has followed this case from the beginning, if anyone ever deserved the death penalty is this sub-human.
Great job by the majority Supreme Court Justices. And SHAME on the dissenter justices.
"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 Palelologus
“. . . it also undermines the federal government’s ability to complete international agreements.”
Then the Federal government better make DAMN well that the International Treaties in question are approved by States BEFORE they are signed.
That would be because they never became fully "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when they were born, and were required, like all foreigners, to be added to their family visa pending its expiration and their return to Mexico.
In short, it's a major loss for the people of the United States when it comes to expelling illegal aliens and their offspring.
Soliciting your comments. Perhaps you can consult with The Scholar (the one who goes by the name of Hamilton, Madison and Jay) and teach me something. It’s all about me ;-)
I don’t understand muawiyah’s argument.
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. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.
I believe the Founding Fathers would never have imagined a world court; but may have imagined a court of maritime jurisdiction. They wanted the U.S. to have that power on their own, because their Constitution gives Congress power to try crimes on the high seas in Section 8.
From this point, we can safely assume that they would not have ceded jurisdiction to a world court when our own laws are broken on our own land, regardless of citizenship and legalities involved.
The birthright citizenship was questioned by John Eastman. He claimed that since the people were in the US illegally, they were not subject to US jurisdiction. Therefore, their children were not citizens.
Now, this case claims that illegal citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, not the world court.
Therefore, illegals are subject to the jurisdiction so the children of illegals are citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37cP_apQ-eg
The original comment is somewhere in a thread we had going on the question of what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant. Read the 14th amendment, note the claim Mexico makes regarding its citizens, peruse this particular court case, and then come back and tell us which side of the "birth right" ledger Roberts came down on.
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.