Texas executes Mexican national

[Brovane]

The treaty is only binding if it does not violate states rights.




As much as I would like it not to be,,,,.

The treaty is only binding if doesn't violate the US constitution. The treaty doesn't violate the US constitution so it is binding on the US states. I believe that this has already been pointed out to you several times but you just keep making a circular argument.

 

[Agent11]

More proof Kerry is an idiot.

 

[thraashman]

More proof Kerry is an idiot.

Wanting a state in the union to follow a legal treaty as outlined it's required to in the Constitution makes him an idiot?

Are ... are you trying to keep up with Texashiker on today's stupidest poster award or did you mistype?

 

[unokitty]

If there's a law / treaty which states we must notify a nation of this situation, before trial, then I'm okay with following such simple gestures. Notification does not imply control, or that he gets away with murder.

According to the Houston Chronicle, "The Mexican Consulate was apprised of Tamayo's case about 10 days before his trial." (Though, it was in all of the papers well before that...)

US Supreme Court has already ruled that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations doesn't impact this case.

Roe Wilson, a lawyer at the Harris County district attorney's office... has stated "He was given all the rights an American citizen has when arrested," ... adding that he received a court-appointed attorney and multiple appellate reviews of his conviction.

According to the Texas Governor: "If you commit a despicable crime like this in Texas, you are subject to our state laws, including a fair trial by jury and the ultimate penalty."

Like US Supreme Court, I'm okay with that.

If anyone is offended that this murderer didn't get more rights than an American Citizen, I'm okay with that as well.


Uno

 

[Texashiker]

you just keep making a circular argument.

Honestly, I do not care.

The guy should not have been in Texas to start with, and then he killed a cop.

As far as I am concerned he had a right to a lawyer and trial, and that is what he got. If he was entitled to something legally, that was his lawyers job to bring it up.

Are ... are you trying to keep up with Texashiker on today's stupidest poster award or did you mistype?

Will you bottle your liberal tears and mail them to me? I want to wash my nut sack with them.

 

[thraashman]

US Supreme Court has already ruled that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations doesn't impact this case.
Uno

The USSC tried to claim that the treaty

In sum, while treaties “may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.”

First, the language of the Constitution has NO language about treaties needing to be self executing, it in fact says

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

In addition when ratifying the treaty in hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, J. Edward Lyerly, the Deputy Legal Adviser for the Nixon Administration, said the treaty was "entirely self-executive [sic] and does not require any implementing or complementing legislation.
So it was indeed ratified on the terms that it IS self executing.
Find the above here http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+V...r+Relations:+a+study+of+rights,...-a020862667

So the Supreme Court may have ruled, but they were provably completely wrong on that matter in two ways. That's the problem with having the conservative make up we have now. Their "fuck the Constitution" attitude that so many conservatives have.

 

[Texashiker]

So the Supreme Court may have ruled, but they were provably completely wrong on that matter in two ways.

Where did you go to law school at? I missed that part of the thread.

 

[smackababy]

This guy was convicted around 20 years ago... In 1994, he was convicted of murder. I haven't done my research, but I'm fairly sure he had ample opportunity to get counsel from Mexico.

 

[Texashiker]

This guy was convicted around 20 years ago... In 1994, he was convicted of murder. I haven't done my research, but I'm fairly sure he had ample opportunity to get counsel from Mexico.

Easy there, you are going to make the liberals cry harder.

Everytime you make a liberal cry a golden unicorn is born.

 

[zinfamous]

There are already Americans locked up in Iran and N Korea even though they didn't commit a crime.

Please say you knew that already. Please.

by our standards, maybe.

again, that is why this is bad precedent.

 

[zinfamous]

Where did you go to law school at? I missed that part of the thread.

or you could, you know, like, read his links and comments and stuff.

 

[Texashiker]

or you could, you know, like, read his links and comments and stuff.

I looked at the http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+V...r+Relations:+a+study+of+rights,...-a020862667 link he posted, and its like 10,000 pages.

I think he is just posting links for the fun of it.

 

[CitizenKain]

Where did you go to law school at? I missed that part of the thread.

Where did you fail out of highschool at?

 

[rudeguy]

by our standards, maybe.

again, that is why this is bad precedent.

So murder is legal in Mexican standards?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Excerpt from Constitution Article VI

"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"

The only time a state would not have to follow a treaty is if the treaty is in contradiction to the Constitution.

Actually, no. The senate must have passed it with a 2/3rds majority. If the treaty is not self executing, additional laws subject to the constitution must be passed. Moreover, the federal gov't is given no power to dictate the punishments the states use for crimes, as the federal gov't is only given the powers outlined by the constitution.

tl;dr: the federal government has no real say, and as such treaties have no real say.

 

[RampantAndroid]

The USSC tried to claim that the treaty

First, the language of the Constitution has NO language about treaties needing to be self executing, it in fact says

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

In addition when ratifying the treaty in hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, J. Edward Lyerly, the Deputy Legal Adviser for the Nixon Administration, said the treaty was "entirely self-executive [sic] and does not require any implementing or complementing legislation.
So it was indeed ratified on the terms that it IS self executing.
Find the above here http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+V...r+Relations:+a+study+of+rights,...-a020862667

So the Supreme Court may have ruled, but they were provably completely wrong on that matter in two ways. That's the problem with having the conservative make up we have now. Their "fuck the Constitution" attitude that so many conservatives have.

OK, so you want to be obtuse or belligerent. Fine.

Quite simply: the senate is approving a treaty. If the treaty provides no way to be implemented, it has no power because they did not approve that power. Measures to implement the treaty are ADDITIONAL LAWS REQUIRED. If the treaty includes provisions, then congress will be voting on them when they vote on the treaty. This is common sense.

As for it being conservatives, it was our wonderful post turtle of a president who wanted to approve the UN gun ban treaty.

First
established in Supreme Court case law by ChiefJusticeJohn Marshall, the doctrine of "non-self-execution" counsels courts to refuse to enforce treaty provisions, in certain circumstances, unless Congress has passed im-plementing legislation. The political branches at times also pursue a course of non-self-execution. In ratifying a treaty, the President and Sen- ate often attach reservations, understandings, or declarations that pre- clude courts from enforcing treaty provisions that might intrude on con- gressional prerogatives or the reserved powers of the states, unless Congress has passed the necessary statute.16

 

[WelshBloke]

Umm, how can this be legal? America not only murders it's own citizens but foreign citizens as well? Murdering citizens I don't understand but murdering foreigners too... I guess this is an example of how the US is a christian country like I've heard plenty of people say.

Theres plenty of countries than will execute foreigners.

Theres a few far eastern countries that spring to mind.

I'm not a massive fan of the death penalty but if you choose to go somewhere that has it and commit a crime that falls under that punishment, you cant really complain.

 

[smackababy]

Theres plenty of countries than will execute foreigners.

Theres a few far eastern countries that spring to mind.

I'm not a massive fan of the death penalty but if you choose to go somewhere that has it and commit a crime that falls under that punishment, you cant really complain.

Especially if that country has a robust appeal system that ensures you get an automatic chance to get your case examined (granted, it does take forever int he US, last I read the average wait time was pretty high for death row inmates). It isn't like this guy committed the murder last week and was executed yesterday... He was found guilty almost 20 years ago (Sept. 1994). I am sure his appeal was up and not granted, due to whatever reasons.

I couldn't find any evidence he was kept from Mexican counsel by the US.

 

[TerryMathews]

Especially if that country has a robust appeal system that ensures you get an automatic chance to get your case examined (granted, it does take forever int he US, last I read the average wait time was pretty high for death row inmates). It isn't like this guy committed the murder last week and was executed yesterday... He was found guilty almost 20 years ago (Sept. 1994). I am sure his appeal was up and not granted, due to whatever reasons.

I couldn't find any evidence he was kept from Mexican counsel by the US.

This. People kept throwing around that Vienna was violated but no one could produce and source stating that.

Newsflash: our Criminal Justice system applies to foreigners. All of them. Being a foreign national he had a right to speak to someone from the Mexican embassy and considering he was incarcerated for >20 years I'm going to assume that right wasn't violated unless someone has a source stating otherwise.

I'll say it again. 20 years. 20. There's no way they kept him isolated for that long. No way that his defense attorneys wouldn't have raised a stink if his rights were being violated.

This guy shouldn't have been here in the first place and killed a cop for doing his job. If you believe anyone should be executed, this guy would have to be near the top of your list.

 

[brycejones]

Newsflash: our Criminal Justice system applies to foreigners. All of them.

Please point to where one poster here has argued otherwise.

 

[TerryMathews]

Please point to where one poster here has argued otherwise.

And done.

Umm, how can this be legal? America not only murders it's own citizens but foreign citizens as well? Murdering citizens I don't understand but murdering foreigners too... I guess this is an example of how the US is a christian country like I've heard plenty of people say.

 

[nehalem256]

Theres plenty of countries than will execute foreigners.

Theres a few far eastern countries that spring to mind.

I'm not a massive fan of the death penalty but if you choose to go somewhere that has it and commit a crime that falls under that punishment, you cant really complain.

Especially when the crime is an obvious no no like killing a cop.

 

[TerryMathews]

From the first link
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/us/mexico-texas-tamayo-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is about as compelling as "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Anyone relatively unbiased state his rights were violated? Did Kerry ever say they were? How about an advocacy organization like Amnesty Intl?

 

[zinfamous]

So murder is legal in Mexican standards?

I don't know, but the particular standards aren't really relevant. The point is simply that different countries have different standards, and you can't simply demand that your county's laws be applied equally to other countries.

I mean, that's exactly what this is about no?

Seriously--pretty much anyone here will look at some idiot tourist going into DPRNK and spouting anti-communist rhetoric as a buffoon, and pretty much deserving of their hard-labor sentence. Wouldn't you? I would. We know their laws, we know they are idiotic, inhuman laws, but we know what they are.

As for this guy--I actually agree with the posters saying that he came to this country, he committed a very real crime and is now facing our system of justice (er...punishment). It seems he was given more than enough time for appeals, and I am fine with that.


As for supposedly violating international treaty, well it seems there are rather compelling arguments from either side that we legally bound to honor them or, rather, there is simple procedure in place to enforce them; or that we are generally not bound by them, constitutionally, and so can ignore any international treaty at will.

The second perspective bothers me, regardless of whether or not US law "allows" this. It seems that we only obey the treaties we like, ignore the others that simply get in our way.

As to this specific case, I am not sympathetic to the cop killer because our own internal laws, imo, allowed more than adequate time for his appeal. I'm not comfortable with being forced to turn over a foreigner that killed one of our citizens simply because a treaty dictates that we should.

 

[rudeguy]

I don't know, but the particular standards aren't really relevant. The point is simply that different countries have different standards, and you can't simply demand that your county's laws be applied equally to other countries.

I mean, that's exactly what this is about no?

Seriously--pretty much anyone here will look at some idiot tourist going into DPRNK and spouting anti-communist rhetoric as a buffoon, and pretty much deserving of their hard-labor sentence. Wouldn't you? I would. We know their laws, we know they are idiotic, inhuman laws, but we know what they are.

As for this guy--I actually agree with the posters saying that he came to this country, he committed a very real crime and is now facing our system of justice (er...punishment). It seems he was given more than enough time for appeals, and I am fine with that.


As for supposedly violating international treaty, well it seems there are rather compelling arguments from either side that we legally bound to honor them or, rather, there is simple procedure in place to enforce them; or that we are generally not bound by them, constitutionally, and so can ignore any international treaty at will.

The second perspective bothers me, regardless of whether or not US law "allows" this. It seems that we only obey the treaties we like, ignore the others that simply get in our way.

As to this specific case, I am not sympathetic to the cop killer because our own internal laws, imo, allowed more than adequate time for his appeal. I'm not comfortable with being forced to turn over a foreigner that killed one of our citizens simply because a treaty dictates that we should.

You are stretching on this one.

Halik said imagine someone gets stoned to death for a Kim Jun Dumbass joke
I said there are people locked up in DPRK and Iran that comitted no crime.
You said maybe by our standards
I have yet to hear of a country whose standards including shooting a cop in the back of the head 3 times while you are in that country illegally

What this is all about is bleeding heart liberals grapsing at straws. I have yet to see anyone provide any proof that he was denied access to anyone. The guy was in prison for decades, he had plenty of time to call whoever he wanted. I promise he was allowed visitors, I promise this was in the paper. Maybe Mexico was just happy to be rid of this cop killing filth?