Posted on 04/11/2008 6:41:17 AM PDT by Sursum Corda
Important Supreme Court Decision Rejects UN High Court over US Treaty Obligations
By Piero A. Tozzi
(NEW YORK — C-FAM) A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirmed the right of the United States to govern its affairs in accordance with the US Constitution rather than specific provisions of international treaties. In the process, the Court rejected a directive of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Medellín v. Texas not only reaffirmed principles of sovereignty and self-government, but also undercut arguments of international pro-abortion activists that accession to international treaties requires nations to disregard domestic constitutional protections for the unborn.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court rejected the argument that Texas law enforcement officials were required to notify a Mexican murder suspect of his right under international law to contact his country’s consulate following his arrest. An order by the ICJ – the United Nations’ “principal judicial organ” headquartered at The Hague, also known as the “World Court” – had directed that the Mexican national was entitled to have his case reviewed by the state court based a provision of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty which the U.S. has ratified.
The Bush Administration had urged compliance with the ICJ decision, arguing that the executive branch had authority to direct a state court to give it effect. Analyzing the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution and case law dating back to the early decades of the Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that the President lacked such authority.
As the treaty provision at issue was not “self-executing” – in other words, it did not become automatically binding upon ratification by Congress – it could not bind states without further Congressional action. The U.S. Constitution requir es action by the legislative, not the executive, branch to transform a non-self-executing treaty obligation into domestic law.
The principles underlying the U.S. Supreme Court decision have application beyond the immediate case. In recent years, radical pro-abortion NGOs like the Center for Reproductive Rights have argued that sovereign nations must liberalize abortion laws based on non-binding recommendations of certain UN committees, even though such reinterpretations of treaty obligations are inconsistent with the original language in the treaties. Abortion advocates were successful in convincing the Supreme Court of Colombia in 2006 to overturn Colombia’s pro-life laws based on such arguments. A similar challenge is currently pending in Mexico, where the Mexican Supreme Court is weighing the constitutionality of a municipal law passed by Mexico City that allows first trimester abortion.
; The Medellín decision, however, while premised upon the importance of the United States fulfilling its treaty obligations, would not allow outside parties – in this case the ICJ – to dictate how such obligations would be fulfilled. Rather, the outcome was dictated by reference to domestic constitutional principles.
Medellín thus marks an additional chapter in the on-going debate over the interrelationship between democratic self-determination and the scope of obligations imposed upon sovereign nations participating in international legal regimes.
For more news visit us at www.c-fam.org
Copyright 2008 Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.
Sursum Corda
Well, at least he’s forced the Supremes to put their feet in cement. The case came out correctly, and it will be harder for Obama to change that result.
The really scary part is that there are 3 Supreme Court “Justices” who think that the UN High Court ought to be able to exercise a veto over US law.
The Geneva Convention covers prisoners during time of war, I thought. Is this a tacit admission by the UN that Mexico is waging war upon the USA?
Excellent decision by SCOTUS. The President doesn’t seem to take that oath stuff very seriously.
Bush isn’t just soft on mexico, he may as well be mexican as much and he panders to them to our detriment.
I will credit Bush for appointing the justices who provided this decision. As to the administration’s position on the matter, I hope it is the case that they took an extreme position to force the court to make a decision on the matter. I have not researched the matter sufficiently to be sure. Roberts has shown to be a conservative who is conservative about making decisions and will prefer to pass on adjudicating cases unless absolutely necessary. Maybe forcing the court’s hand from time to time is needed.
I work with a true-blue liberal who claims that treaties trump US law, including the Constitution. As I see it, this is a legal and a political issue. I'm unclear on the law. Plus I would support any President who defied the World Court.
This is an interesting article but too nuanced for me to follow. This is not nearly as definite as I would like. Who are the three Supremes who would place the World Court over the US?
Well, whether we like it or not, the Constitution puts properly ratified treaties on par with the COnstitution itself. This is very dangerous, but there it is. On the other hand, do note that many of our “traties” (e.g. NAFTA) are but “agreements.” A treaty requires 2/3’s Senate vote. Agreements can get by on a raw majority. This lessens the likeliness of Kyoto being a ratified “treaty.”
My theory: Bush will have his retirement home and library in Mexico.
Imagine if he had gotten the cleaning lady through.
Only knowing about this decision from the article, I feel the decision is good but doesn’t go far enough. Basically the decision seems to have still left “wiggle room” to the President and Congress. It allows them to enact and ratify treaties having self-executing provisions which violate our Constitution.
If this is the case, I believe Americans have much more to do. Basically we must force the issue that the Constitution and its provisions may not be in any way altered or suspended by treaty provisions.
Otherwise a treasonous President and compliant/complicit Congress can gut the Constitution through trojan horse treaty obligations.
Party time!!
Ever think Bush pushed this through the courts so there would be this precident setting result? It basically means that unless Congress invokes a mechanism that would bind a treaty on the states, the treaty is unenforcible on the states. POTUS can't step in and enforce it. Imaging if Hillary! were president without this court case?
Yes, I want to know also, but I'll bet it's the libs.
Well duh, of course our courts are going to claim that they’re higher than international courts. Our courts don’t want to lose power.
Now if the international body was claiming sovereignty over our congress, president, people - it would be a different story....
Do the members of the supreme court take an oath to defend the constitution? IF they do, and have not those that ruled for the world court broken that oath and thus need to be impeached?
This is not the Geneva convention, but the "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations".
Not that it matters. Treaties do NOT take precedence over the Constitution.
The 3 should be sent packing. For any one of the justices to put UN law over US law shows their dangerous mindset. Isn't there a treason clause or an impeachment provision to remove them? The justices have lifetime terms which give them more power than should be invested in any one body. This is something that needs to be abolished. Conservatives should work to repeal this.
The justices have lifetime terms which give them more power than should be invested in any one body. This is something that needs to be abolished. Conservatives should work to repeal this.
Talk about tramping on the constitution. You can’t have it both ways there no can ya???
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.