World Court Tells U.S. to Freeze Mexican Executions

Reuters ^ | 2/05/03 | Abigail Levene

[FITZ]

The technicality is that the state violated a treaty signed by the United States.

The US Constitution never gave foreign or world governments authority over any of the individual states. The US government cannot make treaties that take the states' authority from them without breaking the Constitution. The Constitution actually was written to limit the federal government, certainly our Founding Fathers did not mean us to be placed under a world government that would override state's rights. The corrupt Mexican government is trying to destroy our sovereignty ----this isn't about protecting their citizens ---how many Mexican journalists have been executed in the past few years? There are blood baths going on in Mexico ---you'd think that government has enough to worry about.

[Bogolyubski]

In whatever treaty we signed (and ratified) accepting the jurisdiction of the world court - if we really did completely accept that treaty. I recall there was some sort of dispute over world court jurisdiction back in the first Bush administration and that the US had signed but never ratified the treaty. The Senate may have ratified it in the first two years of the Clinton regime, I not sure at this point. The 1963 convention which you helpfully provided a link for appears to deal only with counsular rights, relationships and priveledges and is what the WC was referring to in its ruling.

[Travis McGee]

Freeze them? Well, that's a little unorthodox, but if they insist...

It'll make it more hygenic shipping them back to Chiapas as well.

[Bogolyubski]

I'm sure you've already seen it, but Lurking Libertarian provided the answer. We signed and ratified the World Court treaty but only with the provision that the United States has the final say on which World Court decisions it would abide by. (That's a great thing about FreeRepublic, someone in the discussion will often know the details - Thanks, LL.) Of course, a leftist crackpot like Rhinehart on the 9th Circuit could always get a crazy idea to enforce such a ruling, but he'd likely be overruled by the Supreme Court.

This WC ruling may very well have zero influence on the cases in question. It will be interesting to see what the Bush State Dept. does about this.

[FITZ]

Where's the World Court on these executions? Many more people will die in just one Mexican city than from our entire death row.


Ejecutan a tres

http://www.diario.com.mx/nota.asp?notaid=29833

[Lion's Cub]

Thanks for the ping.

It strikes me that Bush's strategy of placating the UN by going through the motions (hoops) of getting UN permission while he gets ready to depose Hussein has now been interpreted as weakness by some.

Personally, I think the executions will have to occur, or we will set a precedent of allowing the world court to intervene in our internal courts. Should that happen, I think we know it time to get ready.

[Lion's Cub]

Correction: we'll know it is time to get ready.

[Eva]

My suggestion is that we simply close the border with Mexico, so that we won't have so many Mexican criminals.

[archy]

Try another civil war, and we'll see how that goes.

Indeed. I reckon we would.

You can't hold out on Galveston forever.

Don't have to. Just until the Yankee leadership in Washington, New York and the Left Coast get tired of losing their cannon fodder from *flyover country* and the results begin to affect their own lives. Then they'll quit first. They're riddled with indecisiveness and treason anyway, the reason most Texans and others hold such contempt for them as is now.

The Constitution is the supreme law of these United States. If you don't like it tough.

Right up until the government abrogates that constitution or dissolves it by unconstitutional acts, such as Second Amendment or other constitutional violations, rendering the entire document and the laws derived from it morally and legally bankrupt and fraudulent and thereby no longer meaningful. Or, so far as that goes, by annexing a state by military conquest rather than by congressional action, such as the military occupation and annexation of Texas in 1965.

Be careful of that for which you wish. It may come true.

-archy-/-