Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“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 [Mexican] nationals on death row in the U.S.”
I'll ask you again where the treaty made a distinction between foreigners in state custody and foreigners in federal custody.
The Court did not state that the US, including the states, are not bound to the treaty, just that Congress must pass additional legislation to make it illegal for states to ignore it. It's a narrow distinction, too narrow in my opinion, but that's what they said. For you to continue to claim that the Court said that the states aren't bound to the treaty is to be incorrect.
Then why is additional legislation needed? You're not making sense. To make it illegal to not follow the treaty? Is that what you are saying? According to you, it already was illegal not to follow it. Let's be clear here, if something is not illegal, there is no violation of anything. Also, if you are REQUIRED to follow something, isn't that a law?
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't recognize sarcasm in your post after reading numerous posts in this thread claiming the POS had special rights under the international treaty and so forth.
What if you travel outside of the country and when you stop in a store to buy something, you are accused of stealing something. You're innocent, but you're in jail, in a foreign country, you don't know the way their court system works. Sure would be nice to be able to call the consulate and ask for help, wouldn't it? Ooops, they won't let you talk to the consulate, because the United States is in violation of the treaty that gives you that right. Oh, well, rot in jail happily knowing a scumbag was put to death in Texas.
You really need to stop your emotional roller coaster, you're going to get hurt! If something isn't illegal, how is it a violation? If it IS a violation, why did SCOTUS rule the way they did TWICE? Why is NEW legislation needed? Let's hear the spin.
According to SCOTUS, you can. I believe they ruled on a similar case in 2008 and rejected the same argument.
I believe that you have in the past criticized SCOTUS decisions. Are you now saying that the Supreme Court is always correct in the way it reads the law? Because I have four Supreme Court justices today who carefully explained, in much the same phrasing that I've used, why this decision and the 2008 decision were WRONG.
The federal government incurs an obligation when it signs treaties. To then say that the individual states don't incur that obligation when such obligations affect ALL Americans in terms of the repricocity of the agreement is a ludicrous position. The court erred in the Medellin ruling, and chosen to dig in rather than correct its error.
No single state, be it Texas or Minnesota, should have the right to violate international treaties that the United States' federal government has signed and ratified.
According to SCOTUS, you can. I believe they ruled on a similar case in 2008 and rejected the same argument.
Congress failed to enact the necessary legislation to require States to adhere to the treaty. The fault is with Congress and not with Texas.
That said, it is not a good thing if States can ignore treaties entered into by the Federal government. The vast majority of international treaties confer benefits on US citizens as well as foreign citizens. In this case it is access to consular assistance. But it can be other areas such as dual taxation. If other countries believe that our word is not good then that will, ultimately, be to our detriment.
I believe that you have in the past criticized SCOTUS decisions. Are you now saying that the Supreme Court is always correct in the way it reads the law? Because I have four Supreme Court justices today who carefully explained, in much the same phrasing that I've used, why this decision and the 2008 decision were WRONG.
The federal government incurs an obligation when it signs treaties. To then say that the individual states don't incur that obligation when such obligations affect ALL Americans in terms of the repricocity of the agreement is a ludicrous position. The court erred in the Medellin ruling, and chosen to dig in rather than correct its error.
No single state, be it Texas or Minnesota, should have the right to violate international treaties that the United States' federal government has signed and ratified.
The Supreme Court says you're wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
