Texas government being idiots

[Genx87]

States rights under the U.S. Constitution, or would that be the Articles of Conferation you're referring to? Because the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to make treaties, and contains a clause that says all federal laws and treaties trump state law.

What gets me about most of the replies in this thread is that we're supposed to ignore the Constitution just because this guy is a scumbag. How about this: I think Holocaust deniers are scumbags and hence the government should censor their speech.

I guess the Constitution is a great idea until it gets in the way of our emotions.

If you believe treaties trump state law what would stop the federal govt from signing a treaty with England to crush gun rights? Or sign a treaty with china that would crush 1st amendment rights?

 

[spacejamz]

Just imagine, if law enforcement officials were only allowed to ask what his citizenship was, this whole mess would have never happened since he never told them he was a Mexican citizen when he was arrested...Why would they tell him he could contact the Mexican consulate if they didn't even know he was a Mexican citizen....funny how he didn't choose to tell anyone this until it became a possible way for him to get out of the death sentence...

actually, if this dirtbag didn't rape and kill her, none of this would have mattered...

 

[thraashman]

If you believe treaties trump state law what would stop the federal govt from signing a treaty with England to crush gun rights? Or sign a treaty with china that would crush 1st amendment rights?

Hey as long as we're doing ass-stupid hypotheticals, if you believe states can just ignore treaties ratified by the US, what's to stop Texas from continuing World War 2 with Japan?

 

[CallMeJoe]

If you believe treaties trump state law what would stop the federal govt from signing a treaty with England to crush gun rights? Or sign a treaty with china that would crush 1st amendment rights?

Are you somehow under the impression that the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are state laws?

 

[sactoking]

States rights under the U.S. Constitution, or would that be the Articles of Conferation you're referring to? Because the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to make treaties, and contains a clause that says all federal laws and treaties trump state law.

What gets me about most of the replies in this thread is that we're supposed to ignore the Constitution just because this guy is a scumbag. How about this: I think Holocaust deniers are scumbags and hence the government should censor their speech.

I guess the Constitution is a great idea until it gets in the way of our emotions.

It's funny you should mention that because in the 5-member majority opinion (plus the one consenting member, it was a 6-3 decision) the majority cited Constitutional law as precedent and in the dissenting opinion the minority cited a case decided in the 1780s under the Articles of Confederation an precedent, so........ backfire.

 

[Genx87]

Hey as long as we're doing ass-stupid hypotheticals, if you believe states can just ignore treaties ratified by the US, what's to stop Texas from continuing World War 2 with Japan?

That isnt a stupid ass hypothetical. By believing treaties signed by the federal govt trump state rights and laws without congress passing a law to adhere to the treaty. You believe they can treaty away anything. Here is a hint, they cant.

Your hypothetical makes no sense as it is illegal under our constitution for an individual state to go to war.

 

[Genx87]

Are you somehow under the impression that the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are state laws?

That is irrelevant to my example. Lets try Obama signing a treaty with France restricting state speed limits to 40 mph.

 

[FuzzyBee]

]You are posting lies (by the site). You care to at least retract them if not apologize for posting lies?

Wow - the irony.

 

[ElFenix]

Federal law can, but a treaty cant. Think about the end around the executive could do with such power. Sign a treaty with Canada requiring we both have universal health care? In this cane Obama wants congress to pass a law that would supercede state law and bring them into compliance with the treaty. The treaty itself has no standing with state law.

treaties can supersede state law, and the prevention of what you described is that treaties have to be properly international in scope.

this has been decided since 1796 ,with tweaks around the edges.

In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time relied on the Supremacy Clause to strike down a state statute. The state of Virginia had passed a statute during the Revolutionary War allowing the state to confiscate debt payments by Virginia citizens to British creditors. The Supreme Court found that this Virginia statute was inconsistent with the Treaty of Paris with Britain, which protected the rights of British creditors. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Supreme Court held that the Treaty superseded the Virginia statute, and that it was the duty of the courts to declare the Virginia statute "null and void."

medellin v. texas was 6 to 3 as well. not sure what the 5 to 4 decision the OP refers to is.


also, the texas governor has no power to independently commute a sentence. the parole commission has to recommend commuting first. the only thing the governor can unilaterally do is a 30 day reprieve. i suppose a continual stringing of those might result in the same thing.

link: http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/1_7_0.html

 

[FuzzyBee]

oops

 

[her209]

That is irrelevant to my example. Lets try Obama signing a treaty with France restricting state speed limits to 40 mph.

It has to be ratified by the Senate to become effective.

 

[Hacp]

Its funny how the NYTimes calls him a Mexican Citizen, yet they use a different term for the bunch(undocumented worker) when talking about illegals invading the country.

 

[cubby1223]

Texas, in what can only be described as mindless, childish, idiocy,

This is what you never seem willing to understand - there are ALWAYS multiple sides to a story. When you openly dismiss the other side as repeatedly as you do, and in such childish ways of your own, your whole argument pretty much gets dismissed.

The key to learning, to knowledge, to understanding, is to seek out alternate points of view, alternate assessments of the situation. Go in with an open mind. Then figure out what you wish to believe.


Now I have to make the judgment, whether (A) all of Texas government is childish, or (B) only you are childish. For now I will refer back to Occam's razor and I think you know where I'm going with this.


Let me guess, Rachel Maddow also did her "investigation" and declared Texas a state full of childish idiots?

 

[cubby1223]

You just got off my ignore list. Thumbs up.

How were you able to read what he wrote if he were on "ignore"?

Well, I know how it works, just funny that you'd point out that you still read people's posts when you're also openly saying you don't read them.

 

[Fern]

I agree with those noting this is complicated.

Further, we have an example above where a state could not confiscate British assets. Well, that is more understandible because we are looking at a situation where a state is entering into international affairs with the interests' of otehr countries.

In this Mexican's case, only Texas internal state law was involved.

I have no problem with US treaties overuling a state's interaction with a foreign country.

In general, I have no problem with foreign nationals having access to their consulates when in trouble with either federal or state law.

In general, I do have a problem with the idea that a state's criminal law can be trumpted by a treaty. Other countries need have no imput into a state's own internal law that have no effect on another country. By contrast, a state should not be able to outlaw products from a foreign country, that is federal gov business IMO.

Otherwise, I see no reasonable recourse for his lack of contact with the Mexican Consulate so many years ago. So I find the whole thing moot.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

This is what you never seem willing to understand - there are ALWAYS multiple sides to a story.

Good point. Let's hear the side of this murderer for his crime, from you.

Sorry, your point is ridiculous. You're denying that a state CAN act childisly, every.

Your argument consists of nothing but assumptions that there is some great 'side' Texas has for this - baseless assumoptions, you provide zero to back that up.

You instead just then make insults based on your assumptions.

Here's a hint for you: Bush and Obama AGREED what Texas needed to do. Does that give you some little clue that just maybe Texas doesn't have a great 'side'?

This is a governor who has a history of bad, dishonest, pandering policies - he's the one who expressed interest in secession, who ignored evidence to let what appears to be an innocent man be executed, who held a press conference to say he'll never accept stimulus money the same day he cashed a major stimulus check, who does things like moving billions in spending to be one day later in the next year's budget to 'balance' this year's.

And you say how he just has to have good reasons, but can't be bothered to say what they are, as you make attacks based on nothing.

 

[Craig234]

Good riddance to this piece of trash.

I don't agree the constitution is a piece of trash.

 

[Craig234]

this really does open up a LOT of leway for foreign nationals that are here. The basis of the argument against his execution was that under mexico law, he can't be put to death, but over here he (obviously was). what if we get a member of a lawless nation commiting murder here.... where we simply ship them back to be "dealt with" by that country, only to hear the next day they are let free. Is that justice? No that is international politics.

That has nothing to do with this case. Mexico not having capital punishment has no bearing on capital punishment for Mexicans here.

 

[Craig234]

This is more like a technicality than anything. Even with consular consultation, the guy would've still been convicted. Just have congress pass a law that requires every state to notify the defendant's right for consular access. I don't see why Texas should be punished for something that Congress did not do.

Texas chose to not do what the treaty requires, for no good reason.

Oh yeah, good riddance. Craig is a disgusting liberal.

You do realize that what the disgusting find disgusting, makes it a compliment.

Yes, he might still have been convicted - which you can say about all kinds of cases where rights are violated. Miranda was guilty - but he deserved his rights.

 

[alphatarget1]

Texas chose to not do what the treaty requires, for no good reason.

Yes, he might still have been convicted - which you can say about all kinds of cases where rights are violated. Miranda was guilty - but he deserved his rights.

Please read the SCOTUS decision before you make any further comments on whether Texas acted appropriately in this instance.

To me this is a technicality- the murderer confessed his crime and asked for an apology from the victim's family. Consular advice does not change the fact that this guy committed the crime. If it's a questionable case, then you'd have a point. Congress is not doing its job to pass legislation that require states to notify foreign nationals of consular access.

Let's not get started on how the Italians treated Amanda Knox and basically framed her with questionable evidence.

 

[CPA]

States rights under the U.S. Constitution, or would that be the Articles of Conferation you're referring to? Because the U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to make treaties, and contains a clause that says all federal laws and treaties trump state law.

What gets me about most of the replies in this thread is that we're supposed to ignore the Constitution just because this guy is a scumbag. How about this: I think Holocaust deniers are scumbags and hence the government should censor their speech.

I guess the Constitution is a great idea until it gets in the way of our emotions.

Maybe this will help in your understanding: Perry's response and reasons why SCOTUS in favor of Texas

Pillay also cited a 2004 International Court of Justice ruling saying the U.S. must review and reconsider the cases of 51 Mexican nationals sentenced to death, including Leal's. In 2005, President George W. Bush agreed with the ruling but the U.S. Supreme Court later overruled Bush.

"Texas is not bound by a foreign court's ruling," Cesinger said. "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the treaty was not binding on the states and that the president does not have the authority to order states to review cases of the then 51 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S."

In its ruling Thursday, about an hour before Leal's execution, the Supreme Court's majority opinion pointed to the IJC decision, saying it's been seven years since then and three years since the previous Texas death penalty case that raised similar consular legal access issues.
If a statute implementing the provisions of the international court ruling "had genuinely been a priority for the political branches, it would have been enacted by now," the majority ruling said.

Had the White House and dissenting justices been worried about "the grave international consequences that will follow from Leal's execution ... Congress evidently did not find these consequences sufficiently grave to prompt its enactment of implementing legislation, and we will follow the law as written by Congress," the ruling continued.

Leal's appeals lawyers had pinned their hopes on legislation introduced in the Senate last month that applied to the Vienna Convention provisions and said Leal should have a reprieve so the measure could make its way through the legislative process.
Similar bills have failed twice in recent congressional sessions.

"Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be," the court said.

 

[Craig234]

Please read the SCOTUS decision before you make any further comments on whether Texas acted appropriately in this instance.

To me this is a technicality- the murderer confessed his crime and asked for an apology from the victim's family. Consular advice does not change the fact that this guy committed the crime. If it's a questionable case, then you'd have a point. Congress is not doing its job to pass legislation that require states to notify foreign nationals of consular access.

Let's not get started on how the Italians treated Amanda Knox and basically framed her with questionable evidence.

You are irrational. This has nothing to do with his guilt or how Italians treated someone.

At least you made one half-relevant point about the legislation, but it's not just about that either.

Even if Texas had the legal right to violate the treaty, it had no good reason to do so.

 

[Craig234]

Some have commented 'I don't know what 5-4 vote Craig234 is talking about'.

From CPA's link among others, "The high court rejected the request 5-4."

 

[ProfJohn]

So his last statement was admitting guilt

"“I’ve hurt a lot of people,” Leal said, according to the Item, “I know Christ has forgiven me, and I accept his forgiveness. I am sorry for the victim’s family for what I did. May they forgive me. Let’s get this show on the road, Warden.”

/thread

 

[Craig234]

I haven't looked closely at the base decision for this, Medellin v. Texas, but I don't see where they get the requirement from of 'binding legislation'.

The constitution says the treaty is the supreme law of the land, period.

Medellin was decided with the usual 5 (radical right 4 plus Kennedy) in the majority, and one of the moderate four writing a concurrent opinion, for a 6-3 decision.

The 3 dissenters said basically what I said above. I'll need to check the majority.