Posted on 03/25/2008 9:43:10 AM PDT by indcons
This is very good news. Congrats to the state of Texas, which had to fight the open-borders lobby and the Bush administration all the way to the high court to prevent international law from superseding American sovereignty:
President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to grant a new hearing to 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.
Andy McCarthy summed up the bottom line on this case last fall:
At bottom, the case is about the freedom of Texans to govern themselves, to put sadistic murderers to death if that is what they choose democratically to do, as long as they adhere to American constitutional procedures in carrying out that policy choice. Sure, it offends Mexicans, Europeans, international law professors, and a motley collection of jurists who see themselves as a supra-sovereign tribunal. But that is not a basis for the President to interfere.
The administration has made a great show of promoting democracy. Democracy, however, begins at home.
Don’t you forget it.
***
SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Deniston has more:
The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984). Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions, the Court said in a ruling written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
The decision, aside from its rebuff of presidential power, also treats the World Court ruling itself as not binding on U.S. states, when it contradicts those states’ criminal procedure rules. The international treaty at issue in this dispute — the Vienna Convention that gives foreign nationals accused of crime a right to meet with diplomats from their home country — is not enforceable as a matter of U.S. law, the Roberts opinion said. And the World Court ruling seeking to implement that treaty inside the U.S. is also not binding, and does not gain added legal effect merely because the President sought to tell the states to abide by the decision, the Court added.
The ruling also is a defeat for 51 Mexican nationals who won a World Court decision in 2004, finding that U.S. states had denied them their consular access rights and advising the U.S. government to take steps to enforce the ruling. In the specific case, Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin, sought to rely on both the World Court decision and the Bush memo to reopen his case, claiming that he was never given access to any Mexican diplomat while his case was going through Texas state courts.
The Bush Administration did not agree with the World Court ruling, and, in fact, withdrew from the international protocol that gave the World Court the authority to enforce the Vienna Convention. Even so, Bush issued a memo in February 2005, agreeing that the U.S. would seek to obey the World Court, and he told the states involve to “give effect” to that tribunal’s decision. The case thus came to the Court as a major test of presidential authority, in seeking to enforce treaty obligations, to override contradictory state criminal procedure rules. In that test, the presidency clearly lost.
The opinion will be posted here. Transcript of the oral arguments from last fall is here.
No, because this honoring of the world court type of nonsense sets a precedent that will surely be followed up ten fold by the left. The President often acts as if he is above the law. This has to stop or the office will become completely irrelevant and order will turn to chaos.
Thank you for all of those very compelling arguments.
They are consistent with what I believe this administration is really doing on a number of fronts, not just this Texas case.
Had it been left to Bill Clinton and the Leftist Dims, the states would be bound by the "world court." Clinton signed the treaty that created the "world court." In 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. as a signatory, and the Republican congress never ratified it.
Today's ruling by the Supreme Court gives the states some protection against the day when a President Obama, President Clinton(#2), or other Leftist Dim, does re-sign this abomination of a treaty. And a Dim-controlled congress will ratify the "world court" treaty if their president re-signs it.
Something to think about.
Get the rope.
You're very welcome. :)
Hey, can I use that the next time I get pulled over for speeding or some other minor infraction? I need to call the Kyrgystani embassy. Kewl!
Quite the opposite--if we can try them for crimes they commit here, they are "subject to [our] jurisdiction." The only people born here who do not become citizens are the children of diplomats, because diplomats have diplomatic immunity and cannot be prosecuted for violating US law.
“If say, Bob J, commits a crime by entering a country illegally, I’d say that said Bob J forfeits all rights.”. This be true in Mexico, France, Algeria, Zimbabwe, etc. To somehow say that it shouldn't also be true here is disingenuous.
You're welcome, and I agree with your statement above. :)
The president has pardoned 15 more ‘deserving’ felons. I see our border agents aren’t on the list.
President George W. Bush Grants Pardons and Commutation
Tuesday, March 25, 2008; Posted: 01:24 PM
WASHINGTON, March 25, 2008
On March 24, 2008, President George W. Bush granted pardons to 15 individuals and a commutation of sentence to one individual. The individuals are listed below:
PARDONS:
William L. Baker, Spokane, Washington
Offense: Distribution of a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. SS 841(a)(1), 841(b)(2); falsifying records, 21 U.S.C. SS 827(a)(3), 843(a)(4).
Sentence: July 15, 1980; District of Wyoming; 24 months imprisonment, one year special parole.
George Francis Bauckham, Oak Ridge, New Jersey
Offense: Unlawful detention, delay and secretion of mail by postal employee; 18 U.S.C. SS 1703(a).
Sentence: May 16, 1958; District of New Jersey; five years probation and $100 fine.
Kenneth Charles Britt, White City, Kansas
Offense: Conspiracy to violate federal and state fish and wildlife laws; 18 U.S.C. SS 371.
Sentence: November 12, 1998; District of Kansas; three years probation and restitution of $8,250.
William Bruce Butt, London, Kentucky
Offense: Bank embezzlement; 18 U.S.C. SS 656.
Sentence: June 20, 1990; Eastern District of Kentucky; three years probation.
Mariano Garza Caballero, Brownsville, Texas
Offense: Dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license; 18 U.S.C. SS 922(a)(1) and (2).
Sentence: November 1, 1984; Southern District of Texas; 34 days imprisonment, four years probation, and a $1,000 fine.
Anthony C. Foglio, Santee, California
aka Tony Foley
Offense: Distribution of marijuana; 21 U.S.C. SS 841(a)(1).
Sentence: October 15, 1996; Northern District of West Virginia; three years probation.
Marvin Robert Foster, Boca Raton, Florida
Offense: False statement in connection with a Federal Housing Administration loan; 18 U.S.C. SS 1010.
Sentence: January 19, 1968; District of Rhode Island; one year probation and a $3,500 fine.
Carl Harry Hachmeister, Denton, Texas
Offense: Conspiracy (to commit wire and mail fraud); 18 U.S.C. SS 371.
Sentence: January 22, 1985; District of Utah; three years probation and $39,330 restitution.
William Marcus McDonald, Wetumpka, Alabama
Offense: Distribution of cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, use of cocaine, possession of cocaine, use of marijuana; Article 134, U.C.M.J.
Sentence: May 2, 1984; U.S. Air Force general court-martial convened at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia; four years confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of $300 pay per month for four years, reduction in rank to basic airman, and a bad conduct discharge.
Robert Michael Milroy, Cinnaminson, New Jersey
Offense: Importation of heroin; 21 U.S.C. SS 960(a)(1), 952(a), and 843(b).
Sentence: April 2, 1975; Eastern District of Virginia; seven and one-half years imprisonment, six years special parole, and three years probation.
Jerry Lynn Moldenhauer, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Offense: Knowingly selling migratory bird parts in violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 16 U.S.C. SS 703 and 707(b).
Sentence: September 19, 1994; District of Colorado; three years probation and $1,000 fine.
Thomas Donald Moldenhauer, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Offense: Knowingly selling migratory bird parts in violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 16 U.S.C. SS 703 and 707(b).
Sentence: September 19, 1994; District of Colorado; three years probation and $1,000 fine.
Richard James Putney, Woodbridge, Virginia
aka Richard James Putney Jr.
Offense: Aiding and abetting the escape of a prisoner; 18 U.S.C. SS 752(a) and 2.
Sentence: September 16, 1996; Northern District of West Virginia; one year of probation and a $100 fine.
Timothy Alfred Thone, Woodbury, Minnesota
Offense: Making a false statement to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to obtain a mortgage loan; 18 U.S.C. SS 1010.
Sentence: September 18, 1987; District of Minnesota; two years probation, $1,500 fine.
Lonnie Edward Two Eagle Sr., Parmelee, South Dakota
Offense: Simple assault committed on an Indian reservation (misdemeanor); 18 U.S.C. SS 1153 and 113(e), now 18 U.S.C. SS 113(a)(5), as re-numbered and amended.
Sentence: October 6, 1976; District of South Dakota; two years probation.
COMMUTATION:
Patricia Beckford, Portsmouth, Virginia
Offense: Conspiracy and attempt to distribute in excess of 50 grams of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. SS 846 and 841(a)(1), 853, 855; unauthorized use of food coupons, 7 U.S.C. SS 2024(b).
Sentence: April 27, 1992; Eastern District of Virginia; 276 months imprisonment; five years supervised release; $10,000 fine.
Terms of commutation: Sentence of imprisonment to expire on July 24, 2008; term of supervised release left intact and in effect with all its conditions.
SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.USDOJ.gov
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1246778/
Whenever I am tempted to post early on a long thread I wonder “Did someone else already point that out?”. Amazing how much posts I avoid that way. But seeing as how your comment draw flack I figured I'd give you confirmation that IMHO you were right on target.
Thank you. :)
As long as some people get it, then taking the time to write the posts has been worthwhile.
““If say, Bob J, commits a crime by entering a country illegally, I’d say that said Bob J forfeits all rights.”
I’ll say it again, some “conservatives” are truly, truly scary.
Plus, they don’t know shiite about the Constitution.
Bush was in the usual position of siding with ... a Mexican citizen
And, that’s a definite tragedy re: Ramos and Compean.
We know where Pres. Bush stands on open borders (specifically the southern ones). That’s what makes this SCOTUS rebuff all the more special.
The entire Senate voted for Ginsberg. So that point is not relevant for comparative purposes. However the fact that McCain supported John Roberts and is running against two candidates who voted against him IS relevant and a differentiator. Elections are always about comparative choices. Always.
Indeed. I'm sure ol' John "La Raza" McCain would throw the SCOTUS under his Doubletalk Express bus if he had the chance.
I agree. And it is sad.
And let's not forget ol' Juan McAmnesty love for squishly judicial activist liberals like Ginsberg and Miers.
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.