• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SCOTUS: Intl law cannot be forced onto states

hellokeith

Golden Member
FoxNews AP link

WASHINGTON ? President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to reopen the case of 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. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.

It is refreshing to see our country on track with states rights in the forefront. In this case, President Bush was wrong, and I agree 100% the state has no obligation to revisit a case for a confessed rapist/murderer.

I wonder what Mexico would do to a confessed rapist/muderer who happened to be a US citizen. Would they even get a trial?
 
I have a feeling this is one of those situations the president was obligated to act but didnt really care. One of those diplomatics deals where he says he will look into it. Also nice to have the court render a decision for future presidents.
 
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. He signed a confession and he nor his court appointed attorney never asked to see a Mexican Consular (State Dept official). I wonder if even the State provided Lawyer would know that much about international law. Those kind of questions may not be asked on the Bar exam for a state lawyer. In this case it probably would not matter. If you rape and kill a woman in Texas you should expect the death penalty. All it said is sexual assualt and murder, so I am kind of guessing what the real crimes were.

It may be possible that upon request of the Mexican Consular that the sentence could be commuted to life improsonment in certain cases.
 
Originally posted by: piasabird
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. He signed a confession and he nor his court appointed attorney never asked to see a Mexican Consular (State Dept official). I wonder if even the State provided Lawyer would know that much about international law. Those kind of questions may not be asked on the Bar exam for a state lawyer. In this case it probably would not matter. If you rape and kill a woman in Texas you should expect the death penalty. All it said is sexual assualt and murder, so I am kind of guessing what the real crimes were.

It may be possible that upon request of the Mexican Consular that the sentence could be commuted to life improsonment in certain cases.

"Medellin was arrested a few days after the killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in June 1993."

I'm sure he's had his bunghole stretched a few times by now. All I can say is I hope he dies a slow agonizing death.
 
I'd love to read that decision or get a more clear summary of it. Basically properly adopted treaties are law in the US, and federal law trumps state law. Perhaps the decision hinges on whether we have to enforce the international court's interpretation of the treaty, and is that duty to comply spelled out in the version of the treaty adopted by the US. But if that's the case, why would Bush (rabid pro-death penalty character with plenty of sharp attorneys on the federal payroll) previously have taken the position backing the international court's intrepretation of the treaty?

As I said, this one's a puzzler based on that little blurb. Intersting bit of news for sure.

 
Originally posted by: Thump553
I'd love to read that decision or get a more clear summary of it.
-snip-

I don't think it's been published yet.

Wait a few days then google "Medellin v. Texas, 06-984".

Findlaw.com is a good place to get such cases. SCOTUS also has their own site. I looked but it's not yet up.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Thump553
I'd love to read that decision or get a more clear summary of it. Basically properly adopted treaties are law in the US, and federal law trumps state law. Perhaps the decision hinges on whether we have to enforce the international court's interpretation of the treaty, and is that duty to comply spelled out in the version of the treaty adopted by the US. But if that's the case, why would Bush (rabid pro-death penalty character with plenty of sharp attorneys on the federal payroll) previously have taken the position backing the international court's intrepretation of the treaty?

As I said, this one's a puzzler based on that little blurb. Intersting bit of news for sure.

Basically Bush was told by someone to say something about him supporting the international treaty as a show of good faith, all the while they knew there was a clause or loop hole to use.
 
So, what are the consequences to the state of authorities who violated the US treaty obligations in this case (and apparently 44 others around the country, and no surprise, 14 of them in Texas)?

Why would any nation sign a treaty with the US that the US can simply not enforce, and say 'too bad'?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
So, what are the consequences to the state of authorities who violated the US treaty obligations in this case (and apparently 44 others around the country, and no surprise, 14 of them in Texas)?

Why would any nation sign a treaty with the US that the US can simply not enforce, and say 'too bad'?

Not committing a crime abroad would probably alleviate that concern.
 
The US relationship with the ICJ is a bit complex, beyond my meager interest to fully explore, but I understand the US has refused compulsory jurisdiction and would only submit on a case by case basis. SCOTUS was in no way saying states could ignore treaties entered into and ratified by the US.

As far as the thread title is concerned I think it's misleading and applies only to this case. Treaties ratified by the US are the law of the land and states must comply as if the treaty were a federal statute via the supremacy clause. Remedies for the fed govt against the state would include all such remedies provided for a state's refusal to comply with federal law.

"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."
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Craig234
So, what are the consequences to the state of authorities who violated the US treaty obligations in this case (and apparently 44 others around the country, and no surprise, 14 of them in Texas)?

Why would any nation sign a treaty with the US that the US can simply not enforce, and say 'too bad'?

Not committing a crime abroad would probably alleviate that concern.

Gibberish, try again.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The US relationship with the ICJ is a bit complex, beyond my meager interest to fully explore, but I understand the US has refused compulsory jurisdiction and would only submit on a case by case basis. SCOTUS was in no way saying states could ignore treaties entered into and ratified by the US.

As far as the thread title is concerned I think it's misleading and applies only to this case. Treaties ratified by the US are the law of the land and states must comply as if the treaty were a federal statute via the supremacy clause. Remedies for the fed govt against the state would include all such remedies provided for a state's refusal to comply with federal law.

"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."

That's not the case from the links I checked. link

[The White House] noted that the administration's position in the case was focused on the authority it believed the president has to compel a state to comply with international agreements.

The court also could dispose of the cases of seven other Mexicans on death row in Texas as early as Monday.
 
So US states are exempt from US treaty obligations? Well that is just precious, especially if an American gets arrested overseas and is denied access to US consulate due to reciprocity. Thanks, Texas for screwing it up for everyone again.
 
Originally posted by: hellokeith

Topic Title: SCOTUS: Intl law cannot be forced onto states
Topic Summary: SCOTUS Activists 1, U.S. Credibility Under International Obligations 0

Fixed it for ya. 🙁
 
Hmm this will set a bad precedent for international politics - countries will basically stop allowing you to see the consulate before going through a trial. Expect Americans getting executed in asia for smuggling drugs...
 
Originally posted by: halik
Hmm this will set a bad precedent for international politics - countries will basically stop allowing you to see the consulate before going through a trial. Expect Americans getting executed in asia for smuggling drugs...

I'm pretty sure if the situation was reversed and it was an American denied treaty-provided consular services in Mexico, some of those applauding this decision here would be screaming bloody murder about those brown skinned Mexicans....
 
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Originally posted by: halik
Hmm this will set a bad precedent for international politics - countries will basically stop allowing you to see the consulate before going through a trial. Expect Americans getting executed in asia for smuggling drugs...

I'm pretty sure if the situation was reversed and it was an American denied treaty-provided consular services in Mexico, some of those applauding this decision here would be screaming bloody murder about those brown skinned Mexicans....

/grabs a lawnchair and a 6 pack for the show
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: sirjonk
The US relationship with the ICJ is a bit complex, beyond my meager interest to fully explore, but I understand the US has refused compulsory jurisdiction and would only submit on a case by case basis. SCOTUS was in no way saying states could ignore treaties entered into and ratified by the US.

As far as the thread title is concerned I think it's misleading and applies only to this case. Treaties ratified by the US are the law of the land and states must comply as if the treaty were a federal statute via the supremacy clause. Remedies for the fed govt against the state would include all such remedies provided for a state's refusal to comply with federal law.

"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."

That's not the case from the links I checked. link

[The White House] noted that the administration's position in the case was focused on the authority it believed the president has to compel a state to comply with international agreements.

The court also could dispose of the cases of seven other Mexicans on death row in Texas as early as Monday.

Well I did a little reading cuz as I stated above, it's more complex than simply "treaties apply to states" vs "they don't". The issue here (or the issue SCOTUS created anyway) is which treaties must individual states comply with? In this case, the Court has announced that only treaties in two situations apply to individual states. 1) only self-executing treaties apply to states, or 2) treaties for which Congress passes subsequent legislation explicitly stating that the treaty applies to each state. The big no-no that the court found here is that Bush unilaterally decreed that this treaty (for the purposes of this one case anyway) applied to the states. SCOTUS says the president cannot make such a determination.


http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=89064847
"The Supreme Court ruled that they are binding only if the treaty explicitly says so or if there is legislation to make that clear. For all of American history, many treaties have been deemed to be what is called "self-executing," meaning that their provisions are automatically binding. But not all treaties fall into this category. The Supreme Court's ruling set a bright line for which treaties are self-executing ? namely, those that explicitly say so or have accompanying legislation that says so.

The court said the president, acting on his own, cannot make a treaty binding on the states."
 
Regardless of what this guy did, if you (the USA) start to ignore international law or agreements with other countries, do not expect the other side to abide by said agreements and don't be surprised when they tell you to go f*** off if a reversal of situations occurs.

 
Out of curiosity what wording does a treaty need to contain in order to be self-executing, because I (apparently incorrectly) assumed that any treaty accepted by congress was automatically applicable to the US as a whole. In my mind it makes no sense for the US to sign a treaty that any state can choose to ignore for whatever reason.
 
Originally posted by: Banzai042
Out of curiosity what wording does a treaty need to contain in order to be self-executing, because I (apparently incorrectly) assumed that any treaty accepted by congress was automatically applicable to the US as a whole. In my mind it makes no sense for the US to sign a treaty that any state can choose to ignore for whatever reason.

It's not just treaties, some US statutes are self-executing while others are not:

Self-Executing Definition

Anything (e.g., a document or legislation) that is effective immediately without the need of intervening court action, ancillary legislation, or other type of implementing action.

A constitutional provision is self-executing when it can be given effect without the aid of legislation, and there is nothing to indicate that legislation is intended to make it operative. For example, a constitutional provision that any municipality by vote of four-sevenths of its qualified electors may issue and sell revenue bonds in order to pay for the cost of purchasing a municipally owned public utility is self-executing and effective without a legislative enactment.

Constitutional provisions are not self-executing if they merely set forth a line of policy or principles without supplying the means by which they are to be effectuated, or if the language of the constitution is directed to the legislature. As a result, a constitutional provision that the legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what court suits may be brought against the state is not self-executing.

Just as with constitutional provisions, statutes and court judgments [AND TREATIES] can be self-executing.

 
Back
Top