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.
Well the Supreme Court made that decision twice no less.
Once in 2008 and again yesterday. You might want to read their decision.
The Supreme Court didn't say that we aren't obliged to comply with the requirements of the treaty we ratified, they said that it's not binding domestically without additional legislation. We're still bound by the treaty, but the federal government cannot oblige a state to follow it. The violation by Texas is still imputed to the United States.
The Supreme Court didn't say that we aren't obliged to comply with the requirements of the treaty we ratified, they said that it's not binding domestically without additional legislation. We're still bound by the treaty, but the federal government cannot oblige a state to follow it. The violation by Texas is still imputed to the United States.
What? You are not comitting a violation if you are not bound to something. Man, the simple things throw you guys for a loop don't they?
Well, then please explain why there has to be NEW legislation that says the states are bound to it? Please tell us how that is possible when it is already the law. I'll be waiting for your spin.
So you admit that the treaty was not written, as you claimed, to say that there's a distinction between federal custody and state custody, yes?
Why does there have to be additional legislation? Because the Supreme Court stated that for it to be binding domestically, there has to be. As I've said here several times, the Supreme Court has said that the ICJ and Vienna Conventions are not self-executing. Despite this, the United States is still a ratified party to the treaty and is still bound by its provisions.
Quote:
What? You are not comitting a violation if you are not bound to something. Man, the simple things throw you guys for a loop don't they?
Any country is bound by a treaty when it ratifies the treaty. The US ratified the Vienna Convention and ICJ Statute. The US is bound by the Vienna Convention and ICJ Statute.
Man, the simple things throw you for a loop, don't they?
Last edited by bc42gb43; 07-08-2011 at 07:23 AM..
Reason: SourD with another mindless one-liner post!
The Supreme Court didn't say that we aren't obliged to comply with the requirements of the treaty we ratified, they said that it's not binding domestically without additional legislation. We're still bound by the treaty, but the federal government cannot oblige a state to follow it. The violation by Texas is still imputed to the United States.
What did Texas violate? Obama is utterly opposed to the states ascertaining citizenship. Obama has gone up agaisnt Arizona and states that the states don't have a right to ask citizenship, so if the states are to ignore citizenship of those they arrest, then Obama should side with Texas.
What did Texas violate? Obama is utterly opposed to the states ascertaining citizenship. Obama has gone up agaisnt Arizona and states that the states don't have a right to ask citizenship, so if the states are to ignore citizenship of those they arrest, then Obama should side with Texas.
What ? The Fed gov is taking Mexico's side. Just look at AZ, GA and now here in TX.
When it comes to Mexico the states are on their own.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I was rather annoyed by this decision. It could severely hurt US citizens abroad, since any country can now claim since the US doesn't follow the obligations it agrees to, why should they when they arrest US citizens.
We are only the Western nation that still has the death penalty, and it puts us in a very negative spotlight with the rest of the world. We no longer can get the lethal injection drug that we've been using, because all countries refuse to export it to us since they don't support the death penalty. As a result, states are now using the same drug used to euthanize animals for their executions, which is not acceptable as it wasn't designed for use on humans.
Very good and fair question. Most likely the most that could happen would be to afford Leal a hearing to have him attempt to prove how the denial of being notified that he could contact the Mexican consulate prejudiced him. None of it would change his factual guilt. At most, he might have been able to convince an appellate court to vacate that sentence and get a new sentencing hearing (where he very well might have received the death penalty again).
Absolutely right. I don't think anybody, including me, has suggested that Leal should not be punished for his barbaric acts. However, rule of law can't be set aside even where factual guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. The Vienna Convention, which we have ratified, obliged us to inform a foreign national in Leal's position that he could notify his hone country's consulate. Imposing a capital punishment on Leal without regard to this convention IS a breach of our obligation under it. If you don't care (as the Texas state government has made clear), then very well. But there is an international obligation that we voluntarily took on and failed to obey here.
I believe that the accused had an attorney.. Is it not the attorney also who is complicit in your observations also? The attorney had every right to contact the Mexican Consulate on his client's behalf, and had every right to request a member of the Mexican Consulate be present. The attorney, in NOT doing so, probably knew it was a waste of time and effort, that the Mexican Consulate could do nothing but convert O2 into CO2, and take up space.
Additionally, it's not that Texas doesn't care, it's that what you are referring to as a "Treaty", had no bearing, nor any force or application in this particular issue. Even the Supreme court agrees with that fact.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I was rather annoyed by this decision. It could severely hurt US citizens abroad, since any country can now claim since the US doesn't follow the obligations it agrees to, why should they when they arrest US citizens.
We are only the Western nation that still has the death penalty, and it puts us in a very negative spotlight with the rest of the world. We no longer can get the lethal injection drug that we've been using, because all countries refuse to export it to us since they don't support the death penalty. As a result, states are now using the same drug used to euthanize animals for their executions, which is not acceptable as it wasn't designed for use on humans.
You've been reading one sided reports. Did those reports mention that this also happened in 2008 with a Mexican illegal and the Supreme Court ruled the same way ?
So you are worried if a US citizen illegally enters a country and murders someone that he won't be treated fairly and is in danger ?
Additionally, it's not that Texas doesn't care, it's that what you are referring to as a "Treaty", had no bearing, nor any force or application in this particular issue. Even the Supreme court agrees with that fact.
What I'm referring to as a Treaty is a treaty. The Supreme Court did not say that we were not bound to the treaty. The Supreme Court said that the treaty was not binding as domestic law without specifically enacting legislation. It's a narrow distinction, but it's critical here. Texas did not violate domestic law, but the US violated its treaty obligation.
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.
something to consider.....
