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.
“If they commit a crime by entering a country illegally, I’d say that they forfeit all rights.”
Well, get back to me when you talk about it with God and tell him you’ve decided his “unalienables” are really alienable.
The irony is that the illegals want to have it both ways: U.S. and state government benefits with protection from their home government. And the fact that our elected officials coddle these border-straddlers is repugnant, to say the least.
And, it appears that some are intent on defending his every action, no matter what as well...
How can you be so sure that the Bushes will be pleased over this? It’s not good to assume anything about anyone - most especially a politician! And, at the end of the day that is what Bush is - a politician!
When he’s right I will defend him, when he’s wrong (as is the case here) I will definitely question him, and yes even criticize those decisions and stances (i.e. Illegal Amnesty, and the $23 Million dollar wall we are going to help Egypt build - instead of building our own!).
(Of course, at the end of the day I STILL pray for President Bush & his family, as he IS our President! But, then I pray for ALL our leaders whether R or D, and always will).
This guy entered the country illegally, therefore forgoing any normal protections such as visas and diplomatic immunity.
This guy forfeited his God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness when he deprived two girls - through rape and murder - those same rights.
Hope that clears it up for you Bob.
“Imagine what will happen if McCain is not elected”
I wouldn’t be so quick to let McCain carry our water.
If he selects judges who think like he does, we’re in trouble.
When the natural born latinamerican says "we", I wonder who he is referring to. Too bad the Founders didn't think to put a safeguard in the Constitution against this sort of latinamerican-invasion-leading character, who was born in latinamerica, away from the White House...
The delegates need to reject McCain based on his ineligibility for the presidency, if not for his liberalism. It's time for a petition.
These days, I pray that God protect us from President Bush...and from most of our nation's leaders.
This issue goes far beyond getting one in on the illegals, it imperils every American who travels abroad and subjects them to the depravity of every corrupt local official or policeman in about 80% of the worlds second and third world.
The myopia and short sightedness of some conservatives can be truly astounding at times.
Score one for the home team!!
At one time he was against the World Court.
“What has that to do with this ruling?”
Everything. Apparently you are not familiar with the case.
I understand... So many things going on right now, and almost none of it good. THIS ruling however, gives me a LITTLE renewed hope (and it’s REAL hope - not the Obama kind! LOL).
Maybe there's hope after all. Senor Jorge Boosh is probably apologizing to Mexican President Calderon as we speak. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the World Court.
So President Bush violated the Constitution in order to enforce it. Did you get dizzy spinning that much?
This isn't about whether the guy should be juiced, he's a pig and I'll pull the lever myself, it's about whether a foreigner in another country who has been arrested has the right to meet with their consular or embassy officials.
For the SC, this may have been an issue of whether this law is applicable since it was never codified into federal law. But if someone asserts the feds have no jurisdiction over aliens, then you'll have to throw out the treaties the US gubmint has with other nations regarding immunity for ambassadors and other certain embassy officials.
Some here would argue that would be a good thing but in reality it imperils every US ambassador or high ranking embassy official in 3/4 of the stinking rat holes around the world.
Hence my 'illegal entry' qualifier. Had he gone through proper channels, then this man should have access to the council of his own country. But he didn't.
Because I don't see our own ambassadors hoofing it over the border to another country.
I thought of that Bob, but as the laws stand TODAY, HERE AND NOW - the President is not allowed to overstep his bounds and proceed to tell individual states what they can and can’t do about things that are DEFINITELY not within his powers as a President.
If there is a problem here, it’s laws that need to be passed for these folks. We can’t stand for politicians (or justices, esp. on the Supreme Court) who do not understand ALL of the Constitution (not just the parts that are agreeable to them and the rest of the world).
If Bush truly wanted to make a case for humanity’s sake, then he should be pushing for a new LAW that supercedes the state’s rights in these regards (dealing with foreign nationals and others when it comes to crime). He KNOWS the law and can’t decide to enforce the ones he likes, and NOT enforce others!
That is what’s at the heart of the whole illegal immigration issue with those of us who are “stuck” on it. Our politicians continually pick and choose parts of the Constitution to highlight and ignore depending on the laws they are trying to pass. (I.E. Kind of like people getting upset about the illegal warrantless “voluntary” searches proposed in Boston and DC, but not minding when it’s done in the name of drugs...).
The point remains — it is our Constitution, and these Justices were COMPLETELY right in their decision as it is based on the LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! Even McCain, Bush, Kennedy and Graham realized that the law would need to change before they could grant amnesty to those who had already broken our laws.
I agree that every human being deserves a fair trial in court, so let’s work on changing the laws then if they are wrong, instead of bellyaching that our Supreme Court actually upheld the Constitution (after all, that IS their job, isn’t it???).
Praise be!!!
Article II, Section 3: "..,he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..."
Article VI:"...;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 in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Article II, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..."
So the president has to enforce the laws, treaties are binding laws, but the courts have the right to decide what the laws and treaties mean.
maybe
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.