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.
AND Four of those Supreme Court Justices say I'm RIGHT. So why don't you actually muster an argument instead of playing niener-niener. Better yet, why don't you actually READ the decisions, and think about it for yourself. Do you think that when the United States government, President and Congress, sign and ratify an international treaty, that states should just willy-nilly violate that agreement, because just because the federal government made an agreement, the states themselves have no obligation? Do the people of the United States stand by the agreements made, or does our word mean nothing?
They don't care, their emotions are telling them differently.
My emotions?
When you give someone your word, does it mean anything? Do you simply pay lip service to promises, and then break them? Do you have any morals, at all?
The Federal government doesn't enter into international agreements to just obligate the government. It's a government of the people, by the people, for the people, remember. Those international agreements obligate the government of the people. We're the people. We have the obligation. My word means something. I would hope that the promise of the American people would mean something. Evidently to you, it means NOTHING.
Definitely don't want to get in the way of a Rightwinger's lust, even if it would only have delayed the vengeance. Who cares about some dumb old international agreement?
Take it up with the Supreme Court, they're the ones saying that a treaty that we had signed and ratified must also be enacted with separate legislation.
Quote:
To make it illegal to not follow the treaty? Is that what you are saying?
That's what the Supreme Court said.
Quote:
According to you, it already was illegal not to follow it.
According to me (and customary international law) it is a violation of international law to fail to abide by the terms of treaties that you have ratified.
Quote:
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?
You're missing the distinction here between a violation of international law, and a violation of US law. Texas did not violate US law, but they did violate international law. They failed to abide by terms of a treaty that the US has signed and ratified. The Supreme Court, however, has said that the treaty does not have binding domestic effect unless Congress enacts additional legislation. Congress screwed up by failing to do so (and frankly I doubt they would've done anything even if Texas had stayed the execution for six months).
Quote:
This is an outrage! This is going to really throw a wrench into my plans the next time I decide to travel outside the US and kill someone.
Why do so many in this thread assume that the only application of this treaty is with people arrested on charges of murder? This could just as easily be about an American whose been mistakenly accused of a robbery while in a foreign country with a foreign language the tourist does not know very well. Our violation of the terms of the treaty in Leal's case makes it more likely that the American tourist will not be given the opportunity to notify an American consulate and may rot in jail for years on false charges. This isn't just about this one murderer, who frankly, the world is better off without.
If we have broken a treaty, what should the consequences be?
For this case, my understanding is that an American citizen could be arrested in a foreign country, request assistance from the American Consulate and be denied since we didn't follow the treaty. If we don't follow it, why should another country. Unfortunately, I think the consequences will be paid by American citizens.
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.
One also has to wonder about Robert's and Alito, who said at their confirmations that they strictly follow the wording of the constitution, can read:
"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..."
and rule that it doesn't count in every State at all times.
If that isn't legislating from the bench, what conservatives say they are against, i don't know what is.
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.
