Texas government being idiots

[thraashman]

For a "non-self enacting" treaty such as Vienna to be binding three distinct steps have to occur:

1. The treaty must be ratified by Congress
2. The treaty must be signed by the President
3. The treaty must be codified in USC through enacting legislation

In this case both #1 and #2 occurred but #3 never did despite the 48 year window since ratification and 3 year window since the prior decision on the matter. Without step #3 the treaty is not binding upon the Federal gov't or the states.

Fact of the matter is that the convicted murderer got a standard, fair trial and was convicted. He got 15 years of appeals and lost. Congress had 48 years to give him an additional "out", 3 of which were subject to additional lobbyist pressure specific to his case, and never took action.

You want to be indignant and full of faux rage over this case? Don't blame Texas, which followed the rule of law and did nothing wrong, blame Congress, whose inaction "cheated" the convicted out of another opportunity.

Actually, there is nothing in the Supremecy Clause that says a treaty has to be codifed into law by Congress. In fact it specifically says that treaties by the government supercede state laws and makes no mention of having to be enacted. The overly conservative supreme court that made the ruling was in violation of the Constitution. Which isn't surprising as they've proven time and again they don't know how the US Constitution works, as in fact no conservatives do.

 

[Wreckem]

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?

Uh, treaties cannot and do not trump constitutional rights. Your example is flawed.

 

[Wreckem]

Obama could have commuted the death sentence to a life sentence if he wanted....

This is incorrect. Presidents can only pardon for violations of Federal or Military Law.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

..double-post..

 

[DucatiMonster696]

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArtic...h_the_Vienna_Convention&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

So the Senate passed it "on the basis that the treaty would be self-executing" - the opposite of what you said. This changed with a questionable ruling in 2008.



You are arguing like an idiot. You haven't addressed most of the issue at all; and the only issue you did say something about was nothing more than 'because I agree with them'.

From the very opinion piece you linked nitwit in the following paragraph.

This premise turned out to be incorrect. In Medellin v. Texas (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an international judgment based on the Vienna Convention could not be given effect as directly applicable federal law. Rather, Congress would have to adopt the necessary legislation to enable the United States to comply with its treaty obligations.

Again you only see what you want but ignore anything else that would bring you back to reality.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Uh yeah they do, atleast in 49 out of the 50 states. All the states, except for Texas, have agreed to follow this specific international law.

Texas ain't the only state that has not observed this treaty.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArtic...h_the_Vienna_Convention&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Mexico availed itself of this same consent-based procedure in asking the ICJ to determine the remedy for repeated U.S. breaches of the Vienna Convention. The United States did not contest that Texas and several other states had placed the United States in violation of binding obligations to Mexico by failing to notify the 51 death row inmates of their right to contact the Mexican consulate. The ICJ ruled that the remedy for the treaty violations would be judicial hearings to review whether there had been prejudice affecting each national's conviction or sentence from the lack of consular notice.

 

[Craig234]

...

You want to be an asshole, you don't get read in this thread.

 

[Craig234]

This is incorrect. Presidents can only pardon for violations of Federal or Military Law.

It would have been appropriate anyway, in that there were not grounds for changing the sentence - the issue was a review whether having the consulate might have helped.

In fact, it sounds like it might have in this case. The defendant reportedly got a terrible defense from a twice-suspended attorney and had serious problems that could have been raised for sentencing, but were not because the consulate was not involved. I haven't seen any suggestion his guilt was in question.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You want to be an asshole, you don't get read in this thread.

Well thanks for conceding the point that you have no argument whatsoever.

 

[theeedude]

So because of Texas' bloodlust, all Americans may be denied access to US embassy when traveling? Thanks, Perry.

 

[spacejamz]

I was listening to this guy's case being pleaded on NPR yesterday, the person explaining what happened obviously thought he was innocent of murdering her, but the story did not add up (between 3 and 4)...

1. A minor was gang raped at a party
2. The accused arrived at the party after the gang rape, saved the girl from being raped further
3. Started to drive her home, girl comes around and freaks out
4. Girl falls and accidentally smashes her head on a rock, killing her

The main complaint of the interviewer, aside from the innocence of the accused, was that he was not informed that he could seek legal representation from the Mexican embassy.

So, I start to think that maybe the justice system screwed up, then I read the details of the torture / murder and the evidence presented by the prosecution D:

It would seem this man is a monster, the police should have allowed him access to legal representation from the Mexican government, per the agreement (despite him being in America since age 2), but I do not think it would have helped his case much...

The police did not know he was a mexican citizen since they are not supposed to ask their nationality when detained...

How are they supposed to let him know he can talk to the Mexican Consulate if they don't know what nationality he is?

Why didn't his lawyers over the past 17 years tell him he could do this? Why is this an issue now and not over the past 17 years? Surely it is not because he is looking to get out of the death penalty for the heinous crime he committed...

 

[Schadenfroh]

The police did not know he was a mexican citizen since they are not supposed to ask their nationality when detained...

Good point, I imagine that he was quite assimilated (in America since age 2).

If the police start informing people they arrest about how they can contact the Mexican consulate to anyone they suspect is a Mexican citizen, would that not offend Mexican Americans?

How can the police properly explain rights to foreign nationals if they are unable to inquire about their citizenship upon detention? Read the rights (depending on international agreements) for each possible country of origin?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You want to be an asshole, you don't get read in this thread.

It appears that your legal arguments have been thoroughly brought down by the facts of the case as presented by people with expertise in the area. In response you call him an asshole.

Well he may be. I can be at times, but you go out of your way to climb a pedestal and demonstrate the fact. Seriously, no one has put forward a legal counterargument which has withstood scrutiny, least of all you. Your favorite word "idiot" has been tattooed on your bum and your pants pulled down.

Stop being a child and admit you were wrong because you certainly are.

 

[spacejamz]

It appears that your legal arguments have been thoroughly brought down by the facts of the case as presented by people with expertise in the area. In response you call him an asshole.

Well he may be. I can be at times, but you go out of your way to climb a pedestal and demonstrate the fact. Seriously, no one has put forward a legal counterargument which has withstood scrutiny, least of all you. Your favorite word "idiot" has been tattooed on your bum and your pants pulled down.

Stop being a child and admit you were wrong because you certainly are.

 

[qliveur]

LOLCraig.

 

[SAWYER]

Lol ouch

 

[Craig234]

It appears that your legal arguments have been thoroughly brought down by the facts of the case as presented by people with expertise in the area. In response you call him an asshole.

No, he made legal arguments that may or may not be good, but it was other comments he made that 'make him an asshole' and leave his legal arguments unread.

You are behaving like an 'accomplice asshole' by misrepresenting the situation.

That was the point - make jerky comments - the ones you ignore but are the entire issue - and that keeps your other comments from deserving to be read.

If I made a comment on the issue to you, but just before it put attacks on you as a moderator, or attacks on your family, or profane name calling, or make up lies about you, or others jerky comments, you might well say THOSE are the issue you're going to respond to and not then say 'now, let's have a friendly discussion on your points on the issue'.

But then someone like you can come along and say 'he made points against your position and you call him a jerk!'

Well he may be. I can be at times, but you go out of your way to climb a pedestal and demonstrate the fact. Seriously, no one has put forward a legal counterargument which has withstood scrutiny, least of all you. Your favorite word "idiot" has been tattooed on your bum and your pants pulled down.

And your fact-free name calling has you one step from going on virtual ignore. You can't back up your own points, it seems. If you're going to make the attack, back it up.

You can't. You can be brainlessly offensive, you have proven that too much.

Stop being a child and admit you were wrong because you certainly are.

I don't know what part you don't understand that I didn't read his other points, or that I'm not discussing the issue with him for his bad behavior. Is it that complicated?

If someone who can act like a decent person - not him and it seems not you - cares to make whatever points these are you say are so good - maybe they are, maybe not - I'll respond to them. I might disagree; I might think they're great points and thank the person who makes them for corrections. But you need to stop being an ass yourself.

You are quickly approaching the line of excessive incivility. For just one misrepresentation, the vast majority of times I use a form of the word 'idiot', it's about the ARGUMENT that was made, not the poster. And I'll defend each use of the word - not like your offensive, brainless name-calling. Funny, I can't recall one of my uses of the word being shown wrong.

If you would like to improve and actually discuss whatever 'points' you are so excited about - just not excited enough to have actually made the points - we can discuss them.

If you had higher standards of being a decent poster, you could apologize for your bad behavior, but I think it's pretty clear the situation there.

Name calling or civil discussion, the choice is yours.

 

[Craig234]

LOLCraig.

As I said, in some cases, the attack deserves to be the poster is an idiot, not just the post.

 

[qliveur]

English much?

Really, Craig, if you believe half of the bullshit you spout, then you need to stop because you're not helping your cause at all.


Unless, of course, you actually work for the Republicans...

 

[Craig234]

"As I said, in some cases, the attack deserves to be the poster is an idiot, not just the post."

 

[qliveur]

This entire thread exists due to idiocy; the OP's in particular. For example:

This is the same state and governor who executed what evidence strongly shows was an innocent man, ignoring evidence.

I'm pretty sure that the confession and apology right before they very deservedly snuffed him trumps whatever "evidence" you're referring to.

And yet you go on. They say that ignorance is bliss, but you're demonstrating that willful ignorance is stupidity.

 

[D-Man]

Hardly surprising. Bush was Mexico's bitch. Obama is little different.

Obama sure is different he let Felipe Calderón run down Arizona Immigration Law and was greeted by a round of applause by the Dems.

The only thing I can say in Obama's defense is that he did not bow to Felipe

Felipe suggested the United States and Mexico work together to create more jobs for Mexicans in their home country to discourage migration.

Per Obama the shovel ready jobs he planned weren't really there. When he tried job creation in the US am I wrong to say the cost per job was over $200,000 per job?

I am afraid at that cost we are not going to be able to create jobs for Felipe.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...I'm pretty sure that the confession and apology right before they very deservedly snuffed him trumps whatever "evidence" you're referring to.
And yet you go on. They say that ignorance is bliss, but you're demonstrating that willful ignorance is stupidity.

Craig was referring to Cameron Willingham as innocent. If you actually read his posts, even Craig concedes that Humberto Garcia was guilty, he merely challenges what he sees as Texas' violation of treaty obligation.
Of course, had you bothered clicking a link in the OP you would already know this; what was that you said of willful ignorance?

 

[Schadenfroh]

When he tried job creation in the US am I wrong to say the cost per job was over $200,000 per job?

The solution is simple, hire the unemployed to destroy houses / buildings that were foreclosed on by institutions that are now owned by the government. Reduce unemployment and the glut of real estate.

 

[qliveur]

Craig was referring to Cameron Willingham as innocent. If you actually read his posts, even Craig concedes that Humberto Garcia was guilty, he merely challenges what he sees as Texas' violation of treaty obligation.
Of course, had you bothered clicking a link in the OP you would already know this; what was that you said of willful ignorance?

I read the first link; not the second one.