Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

EDIT: Topic not meant to disparage you dern ferners (except you Lichtensteinians of course, cure you and your impossible to spell name!), merely to discuss a US sovereignty issue.



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25783&page=1#c1

SCOTUS Tells Foreign Court to Butt Out
by Ted Cruz (more by this author)
Posted 04/01/2008 ET




Over the past few years many Americans have become deeply concerned that judges have begun relying more and more on foreign law to decide questions of U.S. constitutional law. One doesn’t have to be a constitutional scholar to object to foreign laws and foreign courts -- laws that are not enacted by our democratic government and judges who are not selected as our Constitution provides -- ruling on Americans’ rights and the powers of American government. These concerns are largely well founded, and reflect the increasing degree to which modern constitutional adjudication has become altogether unmoored from the text and original understanding of the Framers.

Yet an even bigger issue was before the Supreme Court this Term. In Medellín v. Texas, the issue was not simply whether U.S. judges should consult foreign law to guide their decision-making; instead, the central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the United Nations’ World Court has the legal authority to bind the courts of the United States. In other words, the issue was whether decisions of the World Court are superior to those of the Supreme Court, and whether Americans will be governed by the decisions of foreign judges in The Hague.

Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right.

The case began fifteen years ago, when two teenage girls were brutally gang-raped and murdered in northwest Houston, just a few blocks from where I attended church as a child. All six gang members were caught, convicted, and unanimously sentenced to death (except for one who was too young to be eligible for capital punishment). Now approaching two decades after this horrific crime, only one gang member has so far had his sentence carried out.

Another of the gang members, Jose Ernesto Medellín, has seen his case become an international cause célèbre, making it all the way to the World Court and twice to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last week, in a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected all of Medellín’s claims and paved the way for the victims’ grieving families to finally see justice. But the issues in Medellín v. Texas extend well beyond this one confessed murderer.

Medellin argued that the U.S. Supreme Court was bound by the World Court, and that the World Court had already decided he deserved a new trial. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically concluded that the World Court has no such authority. That decision was correct because the Constitution doesn’t grant foreign courts any authority over U.S. courts, and it was critical to preserving our Nation’s fundamental sovereignty.

How on earth did this Texas murder case get to the World Court? Well, in 2003, the nation of Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (the formal name of the World Court), which is the judicial arm of the United Nations. And, in 2004, the World Court ruled for Mexico.

Mexico’s suit was filed on behalf of 51 Mexican nationals, including Medellín, all of whom were convicted murderers on death row throughout the United States. Our southern neighbor argued, correctly, that these Mexican nationals had a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs (a treaty ratified by the United States in 1969) to contact their local Mexican consulates for assistance. As a result -- even though the suit raised no questions concerning the proven guilt of these 51 murderers -- Mexico sought to have all of their convictions annulled.

The problem was that most of the 51, including Medellín, had failed to raise any Vienna Convention claims at trial, and the usual rule in American criminal law is that if you fail to raise a claim at trial, that claim is forfeited.

Not overly concerned with the usual rules of criminal law in the United States, the World Court agreed with Mexico across the board and issued a remarkable ruling: it “ordered” the United States to reconsider the convictions and death sentences of all 51 convicted murderers.

The World Court ruling was unprecedented. In over 200 years of our Nation’s history, no foreign tribunal has ever before asserted the authority to bind U.S. courts, much less to reopen final criminal convictions. And, armed with the decision of the World Court, Medellín argued that American courts had no option but to obey.

Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the World Court decision cannot be enforced in U.S. courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision was a victory for the State of Texas, but, even more importantly, it was a victory for the American people. Medellín’s argument -- which three Justices on the Court would have largely adopted -- would fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of our Nation.

The United States Constitution vests sovereignty in the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the President, the fifty States, and ultimately, in We the People. Had Medellín prevailed, American sovereignty and independence would have been gravely undermined.

If Medellín had prevailed, it would have elevated the World Court above the Supreme Court of the United States, given that foreign court binding authority, and made its far-away judges the final arbiters of the law that governs American citizens.

Nobody disputes that the United States should comply with treaty obligations, and both the federal and state governments have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure foreign nationals are notified of their rights under the Vienna Convention. But that is not a reason to disturb the convictions of unquestionably guilty murderers.

Jose Ernesto Medellín voluntarily confessed, in writing, and bragged about raping and killing these young girls as they pleaded for their lives. A jury of his peers unanimously sentenced him to death, and the families of the girls he murdered have waited far too long to see that sentence carried out.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the victims’ families won’t have to wait much longer for justice to be served.

And, just as importantly, the Court resoundingly concluded that, under our Constitution, the World Court lacks the authority to bind our state and federal courts. That ruling will protect our Nation’s sovereignty and independence for generations to come.

Good ol' Capitol Punishment. Right up there with abortion and gay marriage for controversy. Very interesting story and I'm glad the Supreme Court voted the way they did. I for one am all for the death sentence. I would even take it a step further and broadcast it on public television. Normally I'm not a big fan of you Texans as you like to sit in the middle of the ski run yelling up the mountain "Hey Y'all, I'll be down there at that there ski lodge!" while I'm trying to get by. However, you guys have it right on the death penalty and I really wish other states would follow suit. The fact that someone who has committed such heinous crimes is sitting in a cell getting three hots and a cot on my tax dollar is infuriating. Drag these guys out in the middle of the street and shoot them. And don't give me that crap of "Well then we'd be just a barbaric society and blah blah blah."

I have no problem being a barbaric society. I have great issue that three members of SCOTUS actually sided with the argument that the US court system is subservient to non-US systems. I thought that was the whole point of all those nuclear warheads and brave individuals standing on the walls, to insure we could be as barbaric as we wanted to be.

Not surprised the Bush administration sided with the internationalists. The phrase "treasonous behavior" comes to mind.

Whoa there, a Texan who doesn't worship at the altar of Bush?

While I agree with the decision, here's another, less biased blog about it (the one posted was written by the guy who argued the case)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-claim-of-presidential-power/

The issues for the Bush administration seem to be summed up here:

"While the government brief stressed that President Bush did not agree with the World Court’s ruling (and noted that he has since withdrawn the U.S. from the protocol that gave the World Court authority to apply the Vienna Convention), the brief argued that the Texas ruling will undermine the President’s authority to determine “how the United States will comply with its treaty obligations.”

There seems to be confusion between the two articles. Ted Cruz says that they failed to raise any Vienna Convention claims at trial, while the other article makes it sound like they wouldn't have been allowed to regardless:

"The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations gives such foreign nationals a right to meet with a diplomatic officer from his or her home country when arrested in another country. The World Court (the International Court of Justice at The Hague) ruled that the U.S. government must take steps to assure that 51 Mexican nationals Iincluding Medellin) who were prosecuted in the U.S. had that right, despite state court rules that barred them from relying upon the Convention in challenging their convictions."

Anyway...probably we shouldn't have agreed to a treaty in the first place that the federal government can't enforce on the states due to that dang constitution, ya think? That seems to be most of the issue here.

I'd dispute that. They could have met with a foreign consul at any time. However the Mexican embassy is smart enough not to get involved in these sort of things.
It also doesn't help that most of these criminals where not here legally.

That is something that so many people overlook. How many of these illegals are hardcore criminals? Unfortunately a large percentage of them are. Granting them all amnesty because we haven’t done anything to stop them from coming here and don't plan on doing anything in the near to even distant future is just ludicrous. It's ridiculous that in other countries around the world they would simply shoot you and here we say "Ahh, you sneaky sneaky Mexican. You made it across while I wasn't looking. Well, here's your citizenship.". The sad thing is is that none of the current presidential candidates look like they're going to do much in the way of securing our boarders which is a very serious threat.

Indeed. there are many who would argue our troops are better utilized securing the land borders, air space and waterways against terrorism and drugs.

I am quite surprised that three judges voted in favor of subservience to The Hague.

Very surprised indeed.

Have the names of the judges that voted yes been released?

Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg were the dissenting votes.

The whole case is about "Does the president have the power to make a state follow the rules of a treaty signed by the executive branch". Robert's majority opinion basically states that without a law from congress, it can't. The dissenting opinion by Breyer:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had misread the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which says properly ratified treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land" and that the treaties at issue did not need to be implemented by congressional legislation. "As a result, the nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the contrary,"


This is more about who is allowed to do what, and whether or not international treaties should be followed.

As for Roberts:

Bush's intentions -- to ensure reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention with foreign governments, protect international relations and show a commitment to international law -- are "plainly compelling," Roberts wrote. "Such considerations, however, do not allow us to set aside first principles."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501185.html

Anyway, while the case obviously has international-court and sovereignty ramifications, the decision was mostly related to "Can the president force the states to follow a treaty" not "Does the Hague own us". But..."Roberts said to accept Medell¿n's argument would make World Court decisions not only binding domestic law but also "unassailable." " so that is obviously a consideration in the decision, regardless of what the actual reality is.

Seems like the president got the best of both worlds though here - he was able to (for once) act like he cares about international opinion but he doesn't actually have to do anything. The rest of the world will be mad at someone other than him for once.

No many will be quite displeased with him. He sided with foreign powers. Forget the Patriot Act, this is far more dangerous. Where is Mannahin when you need him?

So in essence his argument was "if the President signs a treaty the treaty trumps US Law and the US constitution" So if Presdient Clinton signs a treaty with Lichtenstein (there they go again) outlawing the Democratic party, it'll be valid and enforceable because, well the President signed it?

At that point the guns come out.

Score One for Captain America and Freedom.

Hellfury wrote:I am quite surprised that three judges voted in favor of subservience to The Hague.

Very surprised indeed.

Personally I think it's a ******g disgrace that you're not ruled directly from Brussells.

Stormtrooper X wrote:Whoa there, a Texan who doesn't worship at the altar of Bush?

Nah, he's a Texadian, eh.

Y'all Hoser. Eh?

Eh?

Gotta side with Jfrazell and Roberts on this one. Treaties can’t take legal precedence over the Constitution.

I think the bigger issue behind this particular conflict (US law vs World Court) is our pretty awful adherence to the death penalty, and the fetishistic passion with which some of our citizens defend it. It’s not necessary, and almost every other civilized nation has done away with it.

There are two major problems I have with the death penalty:

1. The pragmatic one. Stormtrooper complains about the cost of three hots and a cot. Feeding and keeping murderers and scumbags alive. In reality, the states (most of them, anyway), have extensive appeal processes, which cost a whole ton o’ money. Even people given a capital sentence spend a lot of time in a cell (years, usually), and a ton of taxpayer money on legal fees. If we just do away with the death penalty, we save a lot of money on the appeals and challenges to it.

2. The inescapable mathematical reality of the death penalty is that some innocent people WILL be (and historically have often been) killed by their own government. If we do away with it, some innocent people will still get life sentences, but as long as they’re alive, they have some chance to be exonerated by new evidence. Try looking into how many capital convictions were overturned when DNA evidence first came into common use. It’s pretty sick how many innocent folks were sitting in cells waiting to be killed by their own government for crimes they did not commit. Which is a greater evil? That some evil scumbags and murderers remain alive in cells? Or that some innocent people are executed? For my part the latter is clearly the greater evil, and preventing it needs to take precedence.

The biggest conflict between the US justice system and most other countries is that we seem to (as a society) value the visceral satisfaction of revenge, of taking a killer’s life, over the principle of protecting the innocent. That’s really what’s behind that ridiculous World Court ruling, and it’s a conflict I have faith that we’ll eventually reconcile.

Edit: I do have to disagree with Jfrazell’s idea that our soldiers are there to allow us to be as barbaric as we want. I imagine the comment was made at least partially in jest, but I do want to respond to it.

Our soldiers are there to protect our lives, our freedoms, and our laws. Just as with our governmental officers, they’re supposed to protect and defend the Constitution. That’s the part you got right.

But the purpose of the Constitution is hardly for us to be barbaric. In fact its entire purpose was to elevate our people and create a society and a government more civilized and just than any which had proceeded it. At this point, IMO, in the area of capital punishment, we are not living up to that ideal, and are now lagging behind other countries. In the area of ideology and civic morality, this is an area where I’d rather we be on the same side as England and France, and not on the same side as China and Iran.

While I'd be happy to argue with you on the DP, I mostly agree with you for different reasons. I do take issue with using math as a reason (I'll explain in a moment), and your use of "often". It's NOT been often. While I agree that even one is too many...it's not an event that occurs often.

That said, I don't give a rat's ass about world opinion. We need to deal with the issue ourselves. And I won't shed one tear when Medellin gets a lethal injection. I hope he gets cornholed in prison a few times first.

Regarding the mathematical certainty of failure...I operated a nuclear reactor for the Navy during my time on subs. Up and down, up and down, hundreds of reactors. No issues. None. Zero. Never. I heard that argument against nuclear power several times. The mathematical certainty argument.

It's a false argument, held together anecdotally. Through the trifecta of training, procedure, and technology, the Navy has avoided any major incidents (major indicating any release of contaminants to the environment). This involves thousands and thousands of nuclear events, usually conducted in major coastal towns. It is absolutely possible, with rigor and planning, to continuously and constantly prevent a "failing" situation.

Mannahnin wrote:Edit: I do have to disagree with Jfrazell’s idea that our soldiers are there to allow us to be as barbaric as we want. I imagine the comment was made at least partially in jest, but I do want to respond to it.

Our soldiers are there to protect our lives, our freedoms, and our laws. Just as with our governmental officers, they’re supposed to protect and defend the Constitution. That’s the part you got right.

But the purpose of the Constitution is hardly for us to be barbaric. In fact its entire purpose was to elevate our people and create a society and a government more civilized and just than any which had proceeded it. At this point, IMO, in the area of capital punishment, we are not living up to that ideal, and are now lagging behind other countries. In the area of ideology and civic morality, this is an area where I’d rather we be on the same side as England and France, and not on the same side as China and Iran.

Thats what I said. They are there to protect the sovereignty of the US. Whether we have the death penalty or not is irrelevant. Its our right to pass our own laws and govern ourselves.

Whether we have the death penalty or not is irrelevant. Its our right to pass our own laws and govern ourselves.

I think you expressed something different with your previous quote.

I thought that was the whole point of all those nuclear warheads and brave individuals standing on the walls, to insure we could be as barbaric as we wanted to be.

dienekes96 wrote:Regarding the mathematical certainty of failure...I operated a nuclear reactor for the Navy during my time on subs. Up and down, up and down, hundreds of reactors. No issues. None. Zero. Never. I heard that argument against nuclear power several times. The mathematical certainty argument.

Chuck, I recognize that the way I phrased the argument hit a nerve. But with respect, you’re missing the point entirely.

There is a big difference between trained and disciplined specialists handling a physical object/process, and untrained citizens deliberating in judgment on an accused criminal at virtually no risk to themselves. In the former the participants are well prepared, and their personal self-interest and safety necessitates maximum effort and attention to detail. In the latter participants are of mixed backgrounds/educational levels/levels of comprehension of the judicial process, and their prejudices and emotions are much more of a factor. The proof offered always includes subjective and circumstantial elements, not just hard physical evidence. Again, a major difference between handling a trial and handling a nuclear device.

There’s also a substantial fatigue factor, as capital trials take a great deal of time, and it’s extremely difficult for anyone to maintain a high level of attention and performance over as many days and weeks as it can take, especially (again) when their self interest isn’t on the line.

As far as established reality, we can point at the track records of each. As you noted, the Navy has an outstanding safety record with reactors. But look at the number of innocent people who have been lawfully convicted and sentenced to death. DNA evidence makes things easier nowadays. 15 people who were on death row have been exonerated just by DNA evidence since 1992. But 127 in general have been freed since 1973.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php

Life without parole is just a better way to go:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2660&scid=64

Ragnar
(Who likes and supports nuclear power, BTW)

Mannahnin wrote:

Whether we have the death penalty or not is irrelevant. Its our right to pass our own laws and govern ourselves.

I think you expressed something different with your previous quote.

I thought that was the whole point of all those nuclear warheads and brave individuals standing on the walls, to insure we could be as barbaric as we wanted to be.

Nope thats my sentiment. We have the armed forces to to maintain our soveriegnty, to do what we want. Not sure what your point is, other than to see how many times I can mispell sovereignty

My fundamental opposition to the death penalty is couched in those terms, Ragnar. The system is too inherently flawed, and only as unbiased as the society it represents, to allow for such finality.

My math argument is merely that the legal process could be revamped to allow for a situation where the death penalty is only only applied to those certainly guilty of a crime meriting it. And there are certainly crimes that merit it. Would you (would I) support the dp in such cases where the guilt (and mental faculty) of the defendent is beyond doubt?

That's absolutely impossible in today's system, and I oppose the death penalty on such grounds. I don't have to address the morality question at all...it doesn't even pass muster on the viability question.

But were we serious about addressing the moral questions, we could address the viability question well enough as a society. That's my point.

Fair enough. Yay for agreement!

It could be worse.

England used to send all of the 'Undesirables' to Van-Diemens Land'-here.

After a while, it was considered 'Cruel and unusual punishment'-and abolished.

So if ya'll think the Death penalty is a sticky issue, come down to Australia.

We have Snakes, Spiders, Crocs, Sharks, and all other manner of Vertebrate/invertebrate death available.

Hey Mr Fazzell, if you are a died in the wool Texan, how come you have a little Maple leaf-thingie-whatsit next to your Avatar?

PS-God bless America.

Is Nationalism a no-no on Dakka?

I just hate how so many people US bash these days, it seems to be a 'fad'.

Not in my house they don't.

We have Snakes, Spiders, Crocs, Sharks, and all other manner of Vertebrate/invertebrate death available.

Wow, now I know why I have a soft spot for you Aussies, it sounds like home

As has been noted, its Texadian, in celebration of our certain conquest of Canada once the girl scout caravan makes it to Toronto and begins its invasion. I mean come on, how do you think we stole, er liberated Texas?

You should have seen last Saturday's Strategic Conquest Meeting (known to you outsiders as Girl Scout Thinking Day). Cleverly disguised as an event to learn about different nations, its really a planning session on global conquest. Yes, those cute little 9 year olds dressed up like belly dancers looked cute, but they were really preparing for operation "Brownie" the stealthy infiltration and liberation of North Africa.

Viva el Imperio de Texas!!!

Don’t let Jfrazell fool you. Those six flags over Texas indicate how many times it’s been conquered. They like commemorating that. It’s kind of a kinky submissive thing. They’re also really jealous of how France has the reputation of being the surrender monkeys.

Ragnar
Live Free or Die- Death is Not the Worst of Evils.

Manny's incorrect of course, it means we have a lot of good food

It just shows how many countries wanted this great land. Don't be jealous Manny, there's room for you too...

It's true, all the Union's best squatters and criminals have flocked to Texas for the past 180 years or so.

Exactly. How do you think my ancestors got here?

Ah Texas, the only state that openly celebrates getting their ass beat. Oh, and if you want "good food" then you need to head a bit further west and get some green chili. That's right, a place where you ask for hot sauce and they don't give you Taco Bell juice.

As for the death penalty, here's a question. What if we began executing our prisoners publicly (the ones that have committed heinous crimes, not traffic violations)? So that the public began to see first hand the punishment for murder/rape/etc. Now after awhile do you think crime would significantly decrease as people realize that if you pull this crap you'll be thrown on the chopping block? If so then wouldn't it warrant it? Sure you'd have a period there where a lot of people would die (some might even be innocent), but in the end crime would go down, taxes would go down, things of that nature. Now, I could be horribly wrong here as it has been known to happen, but I think it's a plausible road to take.



As an off-topic comment about girl scouts and invasions. About 5 years ago at a convention in Denver (Ghengiscon I think) those damned Girl Scouts set up shop at the entrance to the elevator on the convention floor. Now, take a group of 12-16 year old girls and dress them in skimpy clothes and all those poor bastards coming down to game don't stand a chance... simply evil.