• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mexican national executed in Texas

The states are bound by Article VI, but what ludahai refuses to accept is that the treaty itself was faulty because it was not self executing. That made it nonbinding until the representatives of each country passed a law binding the country's laws to the treaty.

The Constitution has nothing to do with this problem.
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Read Justice Breyer's take on Medellin v. Texas:
Medellín v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justice Breyer wrote in the dissent that in his view, the ICJ treaty was "self-executing", based on a reading of other treaties that had gone into effect without additional Congressional action; and therefore, he wrote, "I believe the treaty obligations, and hence the judgment [of the ICJ], resting as it does upon the consent of the United States to the ICJ's jurisdiction, bind the courts no less than would 'an act of the [federal] legislature.'"
One similar example Breyer cited was the 1796 case Ware v. Hylton, which, Breyer wrote, was illustrative of what "the Founders meant when they wrote [in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution] that 'all Treaties ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" In Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court had agreed with a British creditor that a provision of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which had been ratified by the United States's Congress of the Confederation, overruled a Virginia state law regarding the repayment of debts to Britons; and, as the treaty was "addressed to the Judicial Branch", Congress had not had to enact a domestic law enforcing the treaty provision.
 
Last edited:
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Read Justice Breyer's take on Medellin v. Texas:
Medellín v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justice Breyer wrote in the dissent that in his view, the ICJ treaty was "self-executing", based on a reading of other treaties that had gone into effect without additional Congressional action; and therefore, he wrote, "I believe the treaty obligations, and hence the judgment [of the ICJ], resting as it does upon the consent of the United States to the ICJ's jurisdiction, bind the courts no less than would 'an act of the [federal] legislature.'"
One similar example Breyer cited was the 1796 case Ware v. Hylton, which, Breyer wrote, was illustrative of what "the Founders meant when they wrote [in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution] that 'all Treaties ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" In Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court had agreed with a British creditor that a provision of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which had been ratified by the United States's Congress of the Confederation, overruled a Virginia state law regarding the repayment of debts to Britons; and, as the treaty was "addressed to the Judicial Branch", Congress had not had to enact a domestic law enforcing the treaty provision.

Yep that was “his view” however it wasn't the view of the majority … was it ?

We either abide by the rulings of the Supreme court or we don't. We can't pick and choose those decisions because we agree or disagree with them …. if we are allowed to do that, then we might just as well disband the Supreme Court, and make our final rulings on law by congressional vote …. but that means that depending on controlling party .. . any final ruling on law could go either way. according to "their" beliefs ..... hmm ... that doesn't sound like it would work either ..
So how do we decide..... if we don't listen to the Supreme Court??
 
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I already said this, so I'm not sure why you're quoting it to me again. I asked someone earlier, but they never answered. If Congress ratified a treaty proclaiming that freedom of the press was voided, should the SC intervene??


Read Justice Breyer's take on Medellin v. Texas:
Medellín v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Justice Breyer wrote in the dissent that in his view, the ICJ treaty was "self-executing", based on a reading of other treaties that had gone into effect without additional Congressional action; and therefore, he wrote, "I believe the treaty obligations, and hence the judgment [of the ICJ], resting as it does upon the consent of the United States to the ICJ's jurisdiction, bind the courts no less than would 'an act of the [federal] legislature.'"
One similar example Breyer cited was the 1796 case Ware v. Hylton, which, Breyer wrote, was illustrative of what "the Founders meant when they wrote [in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution] that 'all Treaties ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land.'" In Ware v. Hylton, the Supreme Court had agreed with a British creditor that a provision of the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which had been ratified by the United States's Congress of the Confederation, overruled a Virginia state law regarding the repayment of debts to Britons; and, as the treaty was "addressed to the Judicial Branch", Congress had not had to enact a domestic law enforcing the treaty provision.

Barbarian answered your post perfectly. I could post dissenting opinions of the SC all day, but it is waste of time. The majority rules whether you like it or not.
 
Show me in Article VI where a criminal convicted under a state's criminal statutes is bound by it. This guy wasn't being tried in a Federal court. Nothing in Article VI affects criminal charges tried by a state, nor were any of this guy's rights under Federal Bill of Rights and due process requirements violated. You don't have much of a grasp on the differences between Federal law and state law.

There are good reasons why each state in the U.S. has its own Bar exam.

Article VI Clause 2: 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.

That is pretty clear...
 
The states are bound by Article VI, but what ludahai refuses to accept is that the treaty itself was faulty because it was not self executing. That made it nonbinding until the representatives of each country passed a law binding the country's laws to the treaty.

The Constitution has nothing to do with this problem.

The U.S. is in violation of the treaty. If you are ok with the US violating its word, fine. I am not ok with that. Also, the Senate was of the opinion that it IS self-executing. Still, doesn't change the fact that the treaty is the law of the land and the SCOTUS was engaging in judicial activism in the decision.
 
The U.S. is in violation of the treaty. If you are ok with the US violating its word, fine. I am not ok with that. Also, the Senate was of the opinion that it IS self-executing. Still, doesn't change the fact that the treaty is the law of the land and the SCOTUS was engaging in judicial activism in the decision.

If you want to continue confusing the purposes of the three branches of government, feel free. The SC has ruled and that is the law of the land. The Senate does not interpret law.

Feel free to disagree all you want, but it will change nothing.
 
If you want to continue confusing the purposes of the three branches of government, feel free. The SC has ruled and that is the law of the land. The Senate does not interpret law.

Feel free to disagree all you want, but it will change nothing.

And you obviously can't read the Constitution. It is equally clear that the US violated the terms of a treaty and the US will simply have to live with the consequences, including losing the high road on treaty enforcement.
 
And you obviously can't read the Constitution. It is equally clear that the US violated the terms of a treaty and the US will simply have to live with the consequences, including losing the high road on treaty enforcement.

Perhaps you should read it..........
Article III, Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
 
I already said this, so I'm not sure why you're quoting it to me again. I asked someone earlier, but they never answered. If Congress ratified a treaty proclaiming that freedom of the press was voided, should the SC intervene??
If the treaty goes against the US Constitution (ie - your inane example), then yes the Supreme Court would intervene.
Barbarian answered your post perfectly. I could post dissenting opinions of the SC all day, but it is waste of time. The majority rules whether you like it or not.

The US judicial system is already flawed. I'm curious what you don't understand about how "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land".

Read the case of Ware vs. Hylton:
Ware v. Hylton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The treaty of peace concluded between the United States and Great Britain, in 1783, enabled British creditors to recover debts previously owing to them by American citizens, notwithstanding a payment into a state treasury, under a state law of sequestration. An individual citizen of one state cannot set up the violation of a public treaty, by the other contracting party, to avoid an obligation arising under such treaty; the power to declare a treaty void, for such cause, rests solely with the government, which may, or may not, exercise its option in the premises."

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/11-5001.pdf
The United States has also signed and ratified an optional
protocol, a treaty in which the United States agrees that
“[d]isputes arising out of the interpretation of application
of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.” Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes
(Optional Protocol), Art. I, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U. S. T. 325,
326, T. I. A. S. No. 6820. Although the United States has
since given notice of withdrawal from the Optional Protocol, see Letter from Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State,
to Kofi A. Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations
(Mar. 7, 2005), that withdrawal does not alter the binding
status of its prewithdrawal obligations,
see U. S. Brief 22,
n. 4.


"And so far neither Texas nor
any other judicial authority has implemented what the
International Court of Justice found (in a related case
brought by the Government of Mexico) to be the proper
remedy for that Convention violation, namely a hearing
to determine whether that violation amounted in effect to
harmless error."
 
I always thought they interprted legislation/laws against the standards of the Constitution

But the Constitution specifically states that all treaties are the law of the land and that judges in all of the states are to regard it as such...
 
Back
Top Bottom