This is certainly something that hasn't happened before. I find myself agreeing with the president on something. The only saving grace is that I know he has taken this position for the wrong reason.
This concerns a death penalty case. Mexican national Jose Medellin was convicted in Texas of raping and murdering two teenage Houston girls with other members of his street gang. There's not much doubt of his guilt, and he was sentenced to death by the state of Texas.
The problem is that police violated an international treaty by not notifying Medellin that he had the right to contact the Mexican Embassy and request their help. Because of this, the World Court in the Netherlands ruled that Medellin was entitled to a new hearing (along with 50 other Mexicans denied access to their Embassy).
Bush has odered the states involved in the 50 cases, including Texas, to abide by the ruling of the World Court. The Texas Court of Appeals said Bush had overstepped his authority. Medellin's attorney backed Bush's position saying the Constitution requires states to enforce international treaties that the federal government has agreed to.
There is no question that police violated the international treaty and denied Medellin access to his Embassy. The question is whether Bush has the authority to order Texas to obey the World Court ruling. That question was argued before the United States Supreme Court yesterday.
Adding a different twist to the matter is that Bush has said in the past that the U.S. does not have to abide by decisions of the World Court, and he would ignore those decisions whenever he wanted to. His decision to accept this World Court ruling is purely a political one, and has nothing to do with what is right or what is legal.
Mexico is important to his political agenda. If it had been a country he didn't like or didn't need (like Iran or Venezuela), he would have ignored the ruling and allowed the execution to take place.
But even though it's for the wrong reason, Bush is right in this case. When the U.S. agrees to an international treaty, it should follow the terms of the treaty.
Medellin should be granted a new hearing.
Horsepucky, the government can make any kind of agreement and resolution with the world court, U.N., or anyone else; however, I refuse to recognize that the world court or any other foreign entity has ANY say within the confines of the United States. They do NOT supercede my Constitution and my Bill of Rights. Anyone that says it does, is committing treason. My opinion
ReplyDeleteAny treaty the U.S. signs is the law of the land. The only thing it can not do is grant powers to the government that are not found in the constitution. Treaties can and do override laws passed in the US. See WTO and gambling.
ReplyDeletePoint out what part of the constitution was overridden by this ruling. IMO, his rights to due process were originally denied.
So, the foreign national who sneaks into this country illegally deserves MORE due process rights than an American citizen after raping and murdering two girls?
ReplyDeleteDid the signatories to the Vienna convention intend to confer extra constitutional rights upon criminal defendants? Ask them.
Conferring constitutional rights upon criminal defendants based on specious interpretation of international law is a little lite in the tank if ya ask me.
And how dare you do such a grave injustice to American rapists and murders who have no access to a foreign consulate.
If Americans get in trouble in a foreign land, they will have that same right. There are no "extra" rights, and you know it.
ReplyDeleteDo you even know what due process means?
ReplyDeleteWhat part of the US Constitution is overridden?
ReplyDeleteThe part about Judicial power being with the supreme court to hear such cases (art. III, sec 2).