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.
"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
Did you even read the article, bot? The fact is that Bush sided with the ICJ and the illegal alien murderer over the victim, the US Constitution, and TX state law.
I'd cite this international norm is further proof that the illegals do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US and their kids cannot be US citizens.
Regards
And not only that, but people should really read up on the memo he authored which the Court slapped down hard in today’s case. The President way exceeded his authority.
I went and checked and found that out, but you were too quick for me! Interesting concurrence/dissent by Stevens.
15 years after the murders, this vato is still breathing.
Que horible!
So you’re saying any American arrested (rightfully or wrongfully) in another country should have no right to access of consular/embassy officials?
And the pernicious thing about expansion of executive power, even if a person is one of those who thinks Bush can be trusted with such power, is that it will persist into the next Fascist administration. Scary.
Now we need to wait and see if Gov. Ricardo Perry will commute this killer’s death sentence!?
This decision actually gives me a modicum of hope that if a socialist/democrat is elected president, we have a chance of NOT having Kyoto, the North American Union and the Law of the Sea Treaty forced upon us and destroying our country.
EODGUY
Was he here on a temporary visa, or an illegal immigrant visa? I’d say anything goes in the latter case.
Do they barbecue them in Texas? If so, someone might ask the Mexican Consulate what sauce is most appropriate.
No, he did not. President Bush took several steps to protect this nation from the international socialists and their attempts to foist a world government on the people of the United States. The following paragraph, buried at the end of the information posted by indcons, is the heart of this story. Perhaps it's a bit too intricate for the knee-jerk anti-Bush crowd around here to follow, but I'll spell it out for you anyway:
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 [Supreme] 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.
In taking these several interconnected actions, the Bush administration and the Supreme Court have made it impossible for future presidents to try to shove rulings from that so-called world court down the throats of the American people. President Bush:
1. Disagreed with the so-called world court.2. Withdrew us from the protocol.
3. Knowing future presidents could reverse his withdrawal, he sought a test cast to bring to the Supreme Court -- the new, more conservative Roberts court.
4. The Roberts-led Supreme Court ruled in favor of American sovereignty (and, by inference, President Bush's decision to withdraw from the world court protocol). This decision thus enshrines President Bush's objection to the world court into our laws, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible for future presidents to push us under the thumb of an international socialist world government.
What's unusual about that? Bush has sided with Mexico and Mexican citizens over US citizens and laws for years.
someone please help me out here. where in the US constitution is a president given explicit powers to order any court, state or federal, to do anything ?
Good news!
You Bush lovers will twist anything to support him.
Don't know what they're talking about. Sounds like his usual position to me! On the side of the Mexicans instead of the Americans!
Depends if he's there illegally in a foreign country with 30 million other Americans who are there illegally. Is he living and working there illegally? Married raising a family and taking advantage of services illegally from the "host" country?
Or shall I consider your question in the context of a hapless tourist who gets lost during a Kremlin tour and ends up in the Lubyanka?
Your post is an excellent example of spin. I read the excerpts you posted - try as hard as you can; nothing here suggests the interpretation that you managed to create out of thin air.
Are you going to suggest next that the Bush Admin is serious about protecting the borders from terrorists and criminals?
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.