Letters to the Editor
-
I'm no lawyer...
But doesn't the constitution state that all states must abide by treaties signed by Congress and no state can negotiate or nullify a treaty? So isn't the state of Texas nullifying a treaty by not granting this man access to his consulate? And by doing so, isn't the death penalty ruling unconstitutional?
-
Fucking retarded decision.
But sort of typical for this hard right court.
"States' rights" is probably, mostly one of the most pernicious concepts in American constitutional law. This decision by the Supreme Court has to rank as one of the worst in history.
When treaties are made for the country, they exist for the benefit for that whole country, and therefore must be observed by the country as a whole. In this particular case, the treaty was entered into to protect Americans abroad from the judicial capriciousness of less legally "civilized" countries than our own. Oh how the worm has turned.
-
oh good
now those hanging judges in Texas can get the US into a war. not enough their asshole exgovernor did.
-
A seriously bad decision
Oh dear, so many Justices are dumb intelligent people.
Let's be clear, this is an international treaty that requires foreign governments to call the US Embassy or US Consulate when a US Citizen is charged with a crime in their country, prior to putting that person on trial. Some of these countries might (it's tough) have a court system lousier than Texas (which is pretty unconscionable anyway.)
This ia a pretty fundamental protection -- you find yourself in a strange place, charged with a crime, where you do not speak the language, you don't understand the system, you should at least get to talk to your consulate. Texas cops don't like that, it hurts their conviction rates, so they will do anything before complying, even if it means their nephew, niece or daughter getting the "rubber hose" treatment in Libya. The bottom line is that this treaty depends deeply on the courts to enforce it ... and the Supreme court just gave every Texas yutz a by on this one. It is to put it simply, fucking outrageous.
Now I am sure some police officers on this forum will be going -- so what, fine with me. Well I tell you what, let that yutz take someone else's place in front of a Thai firing squad, or in an Indian prison.
-
Treaty ratification
requires a net 2/3 Senate vote (the "Advise and Consent" thingy, Article II, Section 2). [1] Show me where the Vienna Conventions were ratified by such a vote, and [2] explain why Bu'ush had Condi Rice publish a letter a while back saying the U.S. was wthdrawing from it anyway.
If it's not legitimately binding, then it can't be forced on a state, putative moral and/or utilitarian attributes notwithstanding.
In the end, anything that circumscribes Bu'ush's grandiose claims of plenary power has to be a good thing. The Supremes look like they slapped his ass down on this one. But, maybe the whole thing was a kabuki dance.
-
You've got to be kidding...
...in this ruling Bush is to the LEFT of the Supreme court?
-
The One Good Thing
The one good thing about Koppelman's inability to face criticism of Hillary Clinton, as well his resistance to running "negative" stories about his clear favorite in the race, is that he is forced to dig into the news and come up with gems of stories like this, an important and hopeful note that would otherwise be lost amid the chorus of privileged whines coming from the Clinton crowd.
-
Including treaties with Native Americans?
Does this mean South Dakota can sell off Lakota lands now? Can reservation land be sold off again like what happened in Oklahoma?
-
Either this is bizarre or my history is wrong...
One of Bush's duties as governor of Texas was to review death penalty cases. This was not a step that a convict had to request, it was part of the checks and balances that were put in place for all death penalty cases. Of course Bush didn't overturn one conviction. He made sure that Gonzalez presented the cases to him in a way that he didn't have to bother looking at them.
In one case, a Mexican citizen was arrested. He spoke no English and had a very low IQ. He signed a confession in English that he claims was presented to him as a document to let him stay in the US. He was not allowed the representation that this treaty should have guaranteed him. Gonzalez wrote some questionable legal ruling that the US had signed the treaty and not the State of Texas and that the State of Texas did not need to abide by the treaty.
With no further ado, and over the protests of the Mexican president, the convict was condemned to death, with no real proof that he was guilty.
So, either my recollection of events is wrong, or this is totally bizarre.
-
Prepare for the ‘Surge’ …
in litigation.
Taken at its broadest this decision allows States to ignore certain treaty obligations.
Don’t be surprised if you start seeing individual states suing to get out of different parts of NAFTA or other free trade agreements. In fact almost all international commerce is controlled by treaties so the potential mess is huge.
And as wysiwyg pointed out this could also affect treaties with Native American tribes (the casino thing could get interesting).
As mentioned on NPR this morning this throws around 70 or so treaties into a major grey area. An entire sector of well established law (both US and international) has just been thrown overboard. It will take years or more likely decades to clean up this mess.
-
For once, Bush is no the side of the law.
In the end, anything that circumscribes Bu'ush's grandiose claims of plenary power has to be a good thing. The Supremes look like they slapped his ass down on this one. But, maybe the whole thing was a kabuki dance. - BobbyG
You seem really confused about what transpired yesterday, and write as if you didn't even read the case. Surprisingly, the WH was arguing in favor of the treaty against the State of Texas.
-
What the hell happened to the constitution?
While I agree with the court that the president does not have the power to willy-nilly order the states around, there is a clause in the constitution that says that international treaties signed by the president and approved by the senate shall be the supreme law of the land. Was this treaty not signed by the president and approved by the senate? WTF O?