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.
“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.”
One world order.
I was listening to Mark Levin talking about this case while driving home.
He had some great points.
First...Bush did not oversee anything when it came to the death penalty. He let the judicial system and legislature play itself out.
Two....the Mexican Gubmint can’t do anything to get their people jobs but they are great at bringing litigation against America. The best slip and fall American attorneys/leeches would be proud.
Many still do, I would think.
Ah. A zero tolerance kinda guy, hm? I hate to tell you this but in many countries a call to the embassy is optional, but usually after a bullet to the back. Hell, even Mexico cops will kidnap you and hold you for ransom. Or just keep you in jail and hold you for ransom. You think some backwater in Thailand is going to go out of it's way to make sure your rights are observed?
This isn't a dig on illegal immigrants. It's a statement of disgust that illegals are illegal when they want to be and then LEGAL when it means something other than being deported.
In this case, the criminal didn't raise the issue in a timely fashion. So the question basically was, 'Do illegal aliens have greater rights than do American citizens?' Bush said yes, the Court said no.
“In this case, the criminal didn’t raise the issue in a timely fashion. So the question basically was, ‘Do illegal aliens have greater rights than do American citizens?’
No, the issue is do foreigners have the right to confer with their embassies if they are arrested. Who cares if at first they said no and then later decided maybe it would be prudent.
Playing “gotcha” with the law only gets you stung later on. Anyone who refused allowing a foreign perp, at any point of the judicial proceeding, access to their embassy is a knuckle dragging troglydyte who doesn’t have the sense to wear a badge or represent the people in any capacity of public service.
“Ah. A zero tolerance kinda guy, hm? I hate to tell you this but in many countries a call to the embassy is optional, but usually after a bullet to the back. Hell, even Mexico cops will kidnap you and hold you for ransom. Or just keep you in jail and hold you for ransom. You think some backwater in Thailand is going to go out of it’s way to make sure your rights are observed?”
I see. Since other backwater dregs are filthy bastards you advocate that we do the same and drag oursleves down to the level of a corrupt third world hellhole?
Sorry, I shoot for a higher pole for the US than Bangladesh.
206 posts, I still don’t know who voted yes/no.
“In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer disagreed with that interpretation. He also said the majority had set too rigid a formula for deciding whether treaties were “self-executing.” He warned that the decision threatened to destabilize the country’s relations with treaty partners under dozens of pacts.”
“The two other dissenters were Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who both signed Justice Breyer’s opinion.”
So you want the Houston PD to presume every guy they catch with a Spanish accent is Mexican, and call the consulate whether the criminal asks or not? That may work in California, but here there are lots of Guatemalans and Hondurans.
Who cares if at first they said no and then later decided maybe it would be prudent.
So if he decides 10 years down the road that he made a mistake in not asking for a diplomat, you'd throw out his confession, and turn him loose?
You have a two hour advantage on me, so I'll probably not be back here until tomorrow evening. And lest you try to lump me in with the jingoists, click on my FR page to see some of the places I've been.
Sorry I’m late to the party ping...
You are partially right. The "world court" (my disrespect for it is why I always put it in quotes) treaty was never ratified by the then-Republican congress even though Bill Clinton signed the treaty. After he became president, GWB withdrew the U.S. as a signatory, thereby revoking Clinton's signature. So the "world court" is not recognized by U.S. law in any way.
However, what many people here keep missing is this: the "world court" used a treaty the U.S. is a party to as the basis for sticking its nose into the laws of several of our states. The treaty I'm referring to is the Vienna Convention, which the U.S. became a party to in the early 1960's. The Bush administration had no choice except to try, half-heartedly, to enforce the Vienna Convention provision. So the administration asked the states to comply.
According to the more detailed news articles about this Supreme Court decision, several of the affected states did comply. But -- drum roll please -- the President's home state of Texas did not and, instead, brought the suit that resulted in today's SC decision.
Again, I must emphasize that this SC decision essentially supports GWB's refusal to allow the U.S. to become party to the "world court" during his presidency. The combination of GWB's several acts against the "world court" during his presidency, and this new SC decision in favor of the states, builds a firewall between the states and the "world court."
Some future Dim president and Dim congress might try to revive the treaty, but those of us who care about U.S. sovereignty (and the sovereignty of the states), now have case law, precedent, and the SC's decision on our side.
Although I can't vouch for the accuracy of any news article, my answer to your above statement is that the two choices you set up are both incorrect. From what you quoted:
United States had agreed to abide by the world court’s rulings in such cases. Once again, the "world court's" ruling is based on the Vienna Convention, to which the U.S. is a party.
I fully realize that many denizens of FR these days find absolutely nothing President Bush does or has done that they can credit to the good. This is why I rarely post here anymore. However, once in awhile the injustice done to him here is too great to ignore. This is such a case, because we have President Bush to thank for completely pulling us out of the international Left's "world court," except for areas where prior U.S. treaties govern.
To repeat, Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
No, because now we have a series of events that have occured during the Bush 43 presidency that set up a firewall against further interference by the "world court."
1. In 2002, President Bush revoked Bill Clinton's signature on the treaty that created the "world court."
2. The congress has never ratified that treaty.
3. Today's Supreme Court decision establishes as U.S. law that no international court can interfere with the laws and judiciary of our 50 states.
It's true that a future president and congress might try to revive the "world court" treaty and ratify it, but we now have a powerful legal basis to stand on when we fight such a move.
I was thinking in terms of the change in the power from the current balance to a liberal congress and president...then any new treaty could be renewed...but could it also be a decision limited to that one treaty? or could it only be limited to state law matters and not federal crimes, etc.?
I guess I need to read the opinion and facts to see what the scope of the decision really was.
In the current political climate, one cannot even trust the docrine of stare decisis...since the rules seem to be based on the emotion of the moment and the english language can be interpreted to mean anything that the current politics dictates.
I couldn't agree with you more on this point. The bitterness continues to grow between our political parties, and even between different factions within each party.
The actions of the State of Texas, the Bush administration, and the Supreme Court resulted in exactly the best outcome for the American people.”
It sure did.
Thankfully, the man,disguised as Jorge Boosh, is secretly fighting for TRUTH,JUSTICE,and THE AMERICAN WAY.
>>United States had agreed to abide by the world court’s rulings in such cases. Once again, the “world court’s” ruling is based on the Vienna Convention, to which the U.S. is a party.<<
(Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer.)
In other words, Bush’s withdrawal from the World Court Treaty does not free the USA from its obligation to abide by decisions of the World Court when ratified treaties compel it to abide by such treaties. OK, here again, I see your point, although we still have the problem of a self-contradictory US Constitution (see below).
But on that basis, you would argue that the SCOTUS Medellin decision was incorrect, right? Or are you saying that it is possible to argue the case either way?
>>I fully realize that many denizens of FR these days find absolutely nothing President Bush does or has done that they can credit to the good.<<
I wouldn’t go that far. Bush has been very consistently pro-life, for example. I not only voted for his father, but did my best to talk others into voting for him. I voted for Bush as Texas gov. and for POTUS. I defended GW Bush all over the world around the year 2000.
For example, I was the lone American debating a bunch of university professors and students in Sandy Bell’s tavern in Edinburgh, Scotland just after the 2000 election. They said he was stupid, and I told them to ask his political opponents he had defeated for a second opinion.
But that is exactly why many of us feel more betrayed by Bush’s recent actions or inactions. I wish I could look back and have a feeling that Bush deserves the loyalty that we had for him. I am not a mind reader, so it’s possible that Bush really had good intentions here. But other evidence, like the DOT defying congress to allow Mexican truckers to drive freely in our country, when there are no reliable Mexican records to verify criminal or safety records, makes me doubt that very much.
Even if Bush’s intentions were good, I fail to see any merit in a president telling the courts what to do. If he really wanted to do something useful, he could pardon Ignacio Ramos, but he is just too consistently cozy with Mexico to do that.
>>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.<<
Now I understand why countries who agreed to a treaty would like to know that the other nations who agreed to it would not change their laws to contradict the treaty, but this clause is contradictory. It says that the Constitution is the Supreme Law, but if a treaty conflicts with the Constitution, the treaty wins, so what of sovereignty? The part about “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” sounds like a brain-f*rt that was written in reaction to difficulties with the Articles of Confederation.
It gives proponents of a world government the means to achieve their goals. Suppose a Dem congress and POTUS enacted a new treaty that put the US military under the command of foreign powers. I think today’s SCOTUS decision shows common sense interpreting a very tricky Constitutional issue.
“We can do that with McCain.”
If he listens to Conservatives. Not really his forte.
I do. A person would have to be blind not to see it. He said he disagrees with the ICC but when it comes to Mexicans he thinks it's a good idea?
I haven't had any problem with Bush except for the illegals problem. If this had involved anybody except illegal Mexicans, Bush wouldn't have interfered. These murderers and rapists are ILLEGAL. They are not tourists on vacation. They come here to rape, murder, and suck up our "free" services. If they get caught raping and murdering they should face the same penalties we do.
Bush has gone out of his way to protect illegals entering this country. He refuses to let our Border Agents out of prison but is willing to help illegal murderers??? Something is very wrong with this President and maybe someday we will find out what.
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.