 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2175
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: Texas Justice |
 |
|
| |
At issue is an international court's ruling that Medellin and about 50 other Mexicans have been illegally denied access to their home country's consul. Allowing travelers such access when they are arrested abroad is common practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The case centers on whether the state has to give in to a demand by the president that the prisoner be allowed new hearings and sentencing. Bush made that demand reluctantly after an international court concluded Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on American death rows were improperly denied access to their consulate upon arrest, a violation of a treaty signed by the United States decades ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that the United States had violated the rights of the prisoners, in part because officials and prosecutors failed to notify their home country, from which the men could have received legal and other assistance. Those judges ordered the United States to provide "review and reconsideration" of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican prisoners.
The world court again last month ordered the United States to do everything within its authority to stop Medellin's execution until his case could be further reviewed.
Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the International Court of Justice resolves disputes between nations over treaty obligations. The United States is a signatory to the 1963 Vienna Convention, which lays out rights of people detained in other nations. The appeal the Supreme Court ruled on in March turned on what role each branch of government plays to give force to international treaty obligations.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a 6-3 majority that the international court's judgments cannot be forced upon individual states. The president also cannot "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law," he said, and the treaty itself does not specifically require states to remedy any treaty violations.
The chief justice added that the international court "is not domestic law," thereby restricting the president's power over states. "The executive's narrow and strictly limited authority to settle international claims disputes pursuant to an executive agreement cannot stretch so far as to support the current presidential memorandum" that would force Texas to conduct a new state trial, he wrote.
The Mexican government filed an appeal with the international court against the United States in January 2003, alleging violations of international law. Medellin filed his own federal and state appeals based on similar complaints, as well as a claim of ineffective counsel. Medellin has the support of the European U.nion and several international human rights groups.
Bush said he disagreed with the international court's conclusions, but agreed to comply with them. In a February 28, 2005, executive order, he said, "The United States will discharge its international obligations ... by having state courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision."
The Bush White House typically backs states in their power to carry out executions, but Justice Department officials said that in these instances, the president's power to conduct foreign policy outweighed states' interests.
The Supreme Court originally heard the Medellin case in 2005 but did not rule on the merits. It waited instead for lower courts to resolve the federalism angle before rehearing the appeal in October.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/05/scotus.execution/index.html?eref=rss_topstories |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
martiandrifter01
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 706
Location: Xanthe Terra, Sol IV/Mars
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| So, in spite of the fact they were tried and sentenced, they'll go free? |
|
_________________
Just for fun, and maybe a chance to learn a little solar system astronomy...
martiandrifter.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2175
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
No, one Mexican was executed after his appeal was denied in Texas. The thing is our Federal Government has no final say on what any Sovereign State of the United States determines. Texas made its decision. Executing the criminal despite the appeal of International law by Mexico and other nations. The international community obliged Bush to acquiesce (reluctantly) to appeal to Texas to reverse its determination.
"Bush said he disagreed with the international court's conclusions, but agreed to comply with them. In a February 28, 2005, executive order, he said, "The United States will discharge its international obligations ... by having state courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision. The chief justice added that the international court "is not domestic law," thereby restricting the president's power over states.
The Bush White House typically backs states in their power to carry out executions, but Justice Department officials said that in these instances, the president's power to conduct foreign policy outweighed states' interests."
Texas has (as the other sovereign states do) the right to disregard any such appeal by the U.S. government according to American Federal law. Texas, not being a nation, has no obligation to succumb to international requests. The remainder of the defendants have yet to go to trial.
"At issue is an international court's ruling that Medellin and about 50 other Mexicans have been illegally denied access to their home country's consul. Allowing travelers such access when they are arrested abroad is common practice."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/05/scotus.execution/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
The criminal was convicted in the rape and murder of two teen girls on American soil in Ft. Worth, Texas. Don't mess with Texas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
martiandrifter01
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
Posts: 706
Location: Xanthe Terra, Sol IV/Mars
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Quote: |
| "At issue is an international court's ruling that Medellin and about 50 other Mexicans have been illegally denied access to their home country's consul. Allowing travelers such access when they are arrested abroad is common practice." |
Minor point: Travelers? Did they have visas? Because if they didn't, they were INVADERS.
(Fishing, to get him to 'hit me over the head' with which side of the barbed wire fence he's on)
 |
|
_________________
Just for fun, and maybe a chance to learn a little solar system astronomy...
martiandrifter.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
screamzero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 08, 2008
Posts: 2175
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Wow...that did not cross my mind. Christ on a cracker, I've been immersed in my own back yard.
That's a damn good question. The article did say the killer was a Mexican national. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
KingYaba
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Dec 01, 2004
Posts: 485
Location: My own mental hell
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| screamzero wrote: |
Wow...that did not cross my mind. Christ on a cracker, I've been immersed in my own back yard.
That's a damn good question. The article did say the killer was a Mexican national. |
Hehehehe. The word "traveler" made me chuckle. Seems the article was trying to spin this story. |
|
_________________
Texas: illegally acquired; universally admired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|  |
Online Stats: 
