Supreme Court Overrides Bush on Houston Murder Case
Written by Sam on March 26th, 2008In a death-penalty case that has become an international issue, the U.S. Supreme Court declared yesterday that President Bush had no power to tell the state of Texas to reopen the case of a Mexican who has been condemned for murder and rape.By 6-3, the court ruled that the president went too far in 2005, when he decreed that the states had to abide by a 2004 decision by the World Court. That decision found that a number of Mexican citizens who had been sentenced to death in the United States had not been given the assistance from Mexican diplomats that they were entitled to receive under an international treaty.
The center of the dispute is Jose E. Medellin, now 33, a one-time gang member in Houston who took part in the rape and killing of two teenage girls June 24, 1993. The victims were abused for an hour, then killed to prevent them from identifying their tormentors.
Could Bush have been any more obvious in his attempt to suck up to the Mexican government, which he has had a love affair with since the day he moved into the White House? This is the same man who took us into war against the wishes of the UN noting American security lays in our hands, not theirs, but suddenly feels we need to bow down to the World Court when a Mexican national rapes, tortures, and murders two teenage girls on our soil?
As I said, the motive here was clear.
26
PM
Don’t get me wrong this man is scum, but international law states that if a foreign national is arrested, the consulate of the country of origin must be contacted.
26
PM
As the court said, International Law has no bearing on the States’ Police Powers. The fact is this man broke TEXAS law, was tried in TEXAS courts, and faced TEXAS execution - the USFG had no business interfering with this decision, and his appeal was ill founded.
The question becomes whether you value the role of international law more than the structure our federalist system. Very dangerous to shuck your own states for the Hague, in my opinion.
26
PM
While I have my doubts about international law, I do believe that if the United States signs a treaty that it is valid for all 50 states. If I am arrested abroad, I will demand the right to speak to US consulate, any foreigner in the US has the same right, and the rule is there for a good reason, so the consulate can expalin the local judiciary system to the individual.
27
AM
It’s a bit more opaque than simply saying that a treaty is “valid for all 50 states,” especially since this is dealing with State authority as opposed to federal authority. There are clear areas where the federal government has authority - international and interstate commerce, military to name a few - where such a treaty would have binding authority.
However, this is a state police power - upon which the federal government and president has no authority to compel a specific usage of. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to access your consulate when in state jurisdiction (whereas, in federal court, my feeling is that he’d have a legitimate grievance). But again, the key here is STATE police powers. He broke state laws, tried in a state criminal court, and was still afforded all the necessary Due Process rights guaranteed under the constitution.
Now, having said that - does it mean he shouldn’t have his case reviewed? I don’t see any legitimate claim as to why the courts couldn’t go back and “re-convict” him after he spoke with his consulate (from a legal stand point - from a taxpayer expense stand point, it’d be a poor decision).
As for Americans travelling abroad, that’s something they should verse themselves on. Does the state your travelling to afford those rights to consular access? It’s a pragmatic thing to think about at the least - and if it bothers you that much that you might not, then don’t travel there! People are not obligated to come here, either…
…and, I would recommend you don’t strangle someone with shoe laces, either. That might not be a good idea if you plan to travel abroad, either.
27
AM
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and 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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Article VI of the constitution seems to make treaties also the supreme law of the land. This would also seem to fit with the prohibition on states engaging in foreign affairs.
27
PM
Article I, Section 10:
“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
“To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
“To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
“To provide and maintain a Navy;
“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Amendment Ten:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So in all that, where do you perceive the USFG has the constitutional authority to dictate to states how to conduct their police powers? The Supremacy Clause is only applicable in cases where the United States has authority to act on behalf of the United States as a nation.
It’s to simplistic to invoke the Supremacy Clause as a justification for the United States committing state judicial systems to ICJ authority, when the USFG has absolutely ZERO authority to do that whatsoever.
28
PM
“It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of G-d it shall be my dying sentiment: independence now and independence forever.” Daniel Webster.
I think we could use more Daniel Websters in American politics today.