Page 21 of 29 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 287

Thread: Mexican national executed in Texas

  1. #201
    Distributist
    Jeezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The Constitution clearly states that the President signs treaties, the Senate ratifies them and any treaties are bound on all judges in all of the states... what part of that don't you understand

    At least you know understand that the US DID ratify it and you have the right treaty now... lol
    Ask yourself -- does SCOTUS have a role in disputing the role of international treaties once the Senate and the President pass it?

    The meaning of supremacy clause has historically been narrow. This is not a treaty of peace after a war -- in which case no state can continue the war of its own accord. This is not an issue of commerce -- in which case a state cannot unilaterally engage in something like an embargo. This is an international law accord that requires the alteration of state constitutions.
    Last edited by Jeezy; 07-09-11 at 01:12 AM.
    SWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAG
    Quote Originally Posted by Josie
    Thanks for your awesomeness, Jeezy.

  2. #202
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    From The National Law Journal

    The Vienna Convention has been the supreme law of the land since 1969, when it was unanimously approved by the Senate and brought into force by President Richard Nixon. The Senate gave advice and consent on the basis that the treaty would be self-executing that is, that no implementing legislation would be needed.
    The Senate clearly ratified the treaty, contrary to a claim made earlier in the thread that they had not. AND the Senate was of the opinion that the treaty IS self-executing.

    It is now urgent for Congress to enact such legislation. Since 2004, when Mexico obtained a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on remedies for U.S. treaty violations affecting 51 Mexican nationals on death row in U.S. states (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals), the United States has been under a binding obligation to afford a judicial remedy to those individuals.
    Obviously, the U.S. is in violation of a treaty that the country signed and ratified. The US is in clear violation of international law and its treaty obligations. This is a shameful state of affairs. Unlike the Iraq invasion where an argument most certainly can be made as to the lawful nature of the war, there is no way that this can be defended as lawful.

    The United States has a long history of successfully resolving disputes over consular rights through international arbitration and adjudication. In 1927, a U.S.-Mexican claims commission held that "a foreigner, not familiar with the laws of the country where he temporarily resides, should be given opportunity" for consular access. The Vienna Convention codifies this international practice.
    The U.S. has used the custom of Consular access even before the treaty and used the ICJ. It is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. to now ignore the ruling of the ICJ and not abide by a custom and treaty that it has long insisted others live by. Utter hypocrisy. Shameful!
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #203
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy View Post
    Ask yourself -- does SCOTUS have a role in disputing the role of international treaties once the Senate and the President pass it?

    The meaning of supremacy clause has historically been narrow. This is not a treaty of peace after a war -- in which case no state can continue the war of its own accord. This is not an issue of commerce -- in which case a state cannot unilaterally engage in something like an embargo. This is an international law accord that requires the alteration of state constitutions.
    Have you read Article VI of the Constitution? There is absolutely no ambiguity there and the States have no wiggle room in accordance with it. No matter what arguments you make, you can not deny that 1. this is a treaty that the U.S. signed; 2. it was ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution (contrary to your earlier claims), 3. that the defendant went years without consular access; 4. that the U.S. violated one of its treaties; 5. that the Constitution affords treaties the status of being the law of the land that the judges of the states are required to follow; 6. that the U.S. has used this very treaty many times in the past to gain access to U.S. citizens; 7. that the US has even gone to the ICJ and expected its ruling to be carried out in enforcement of this treaty. You can't deny any of this...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  4. #204
    User CarlF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    07-31-11 @ 03:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    125

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    What wastes money is the time it takes for all appeals to be exhausted. Only the lawyers benefit from that, certainly not the victims or their families.

    It's not unusual if it's common practice and understood what can happen if you commit a murder. In that case it becomes the usual punishment.
    Sure, but you could still say it's cruel. But that's not the main reason I oppose it, as a libertarian I just believe the government shouldn't have the right to take away life no matter what plus I find the death penalty to be barbaric and is mostly just supported because people want revenge.
    Last edited by CarlF; 07-09-11 at 02:00 AM.

  5. #205
    Distributist
    Jeezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Have you read Article VI of the Constitution? There is absolutely no ambiguity there and the States have no wiggle room in accordance with it. No matter what arguments you make, you can not deny that 1. this is a treaty that the U.S. signed; 2. it was ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution (contrary to your earlier claims), 3. that the defendant went years without consular access; 4. that the U.S. violated one of its treaties; 5. that the Constitution affords treaties the status of being the law of the land that the judges of the states are required to follow; 6. that the U.S. has used this very treaty many times in the past to gain access to U.S. citizens; 7. that the US has even gone to the ICJ and expected its ruling to be carried out in enforcement of this treaty. You can't deny any of this...
    There is absolutely ambiguity, particularly as to what the original intent of that article is. The dispute is not even about whether the ICJ was violated.

    For example -- is the original intent of the supremacy clause merely to make sure that states follow federal law? Does it account for trans-national institutions, which did not exist at the time of the documents writing, that may eventually supersede the federal government itself? Should all international treaties be considered self-executing, or do they need a clause stating that they are self-executing? Was Texas going through its procedure and admitting that it violated the treaty enough, given the bylines of violation laid out in the Vienna Treaty itself or does it actually have to put off the execution?

    If the issue were black and white, there'd be no disagreement.
    Last edited by Jeezy; 07-09-11 at 02:09 AM.
    SWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAG
    Quote Originally Posted by Josie
    Thanks for your awesomeness, Jeezy.

  6. #206
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy View Post
    There is absolutely ambiguity, particularly as to what the original intent of that article is. The dispute is not even about whether the ICJ was violated.

    For example -- is the original intent of the supremacy clause merely to make sure that states follow federal law? Does it account for trans-national institutions, which did not exist at the time of the documents writing, that may eventually supersede the federal government itself? Should all international treaties be considered self-executing, or do they need a clause stating that they are self-executing? Was Texas going through its procedure and admitting that it violated the treaty enough, given the bylines of violation laid out in the Vienna Treaty itself or does it actually have to put off the execution?

    If the issue were black and white, there'd be no disagreement.
    Article VI refers to the supremacy of treaties. This isn't about the UN and the ICJ, but a treaty that was signed and ratified by the United States. The ICJ ruling called on Texas to review the procedures, NOT cancel the execution. Not even the Mexican government was calling for him to be released...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #207
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    The Low Life got what he should have had years ago.

    My only complaint is the bastards that caused the use of lethal injections rather than HANGING the next day at sunrise for scum like this.

    If people want a better life change where they live. Don't come here and wreck this Country by trying to turn it into the ***thole they left behind.

  8. #208
    Guru
    bicycleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Old Virginny
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,215

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Have you read Article VI of the Constitution? There is absolutely no ambiguity there and the States have no wiggle room in accordance with it. No matter what arguments you make, you can not deny that 1. this is a treaty that the U.S. signed; 2. it was ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution (contrary to your earlier claims), 3. that the defendant went years without consular access; 4. that the U.S. violated one of its treaties; 5. that the Constitution affords treaties the status of being the law of the land that the judges of the states are required to follow; 6. that the U.S. has used this very treaty many times in the past to gain access to U.S. citizens; 7. that the US has even gone to the ICJ and expected its ruling to be carried out in enforcement of this treaty. You can't deny any of this...
    Since this perp had been in the US since he was 2 years old, Texas probably concluded that he didn't need access to the Mexican consular because he was already a US citizen just because of the time he spent in this country. Besides, who cares? He was a murderer, who got his just desserts. It's a shame that Texas took so long to get rid of him. If this murder had occurred during the time of Judge Roy Bean, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Bean would have hanged him the next day, right after giving him a fair trial.

  9. #209
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    i continue to ignore the fact that the SC ruled against a stay you insist ... i have posted an excerpt from the SC's ruling. that would be an impossible feat for one who had actually ignored the SC ruling
    what we had been discussing was your insistence that the perp had been provided access to mexican counsel
    you asserted that said counsel had met with the perp many times since 2010
    i pointed out that the perp's trial took placed in the mid 90's
    if your 2010-2011 date was accurate, then the perp could NOT have received the assistance of mexican counsel previous to his conviction
    and my request, was for you to give us a cite to establish that your presentation that mexican counselor help had been provided prior to his conviction
    you have not done that
    and i can only conclude until such is provided, we cannot accept your undocumented assertion that such mexican help was timely realized

    now you have shifted gears and want to discuss whether the perp had timely requested the mexican counselor assistance
    the right to such assistance would have to be made known to him, and only then it would be for the perp to respond whether he waived or requested such assistance
    in short, you have it backwards. the responsibility for notice is in the hands of the prosecutor (as with miranda notification)

    and your side wants not to deal with the crux of this matter: precedent
    our refusal to allow an alien home country counsel to arrested aliens could be used as precedent to bar Americans in legal trouble out of country from similarly be able to access American counsel
    Once again, you didn't bother to read my post. I wasn't talking about the Supreme Court ruling on this case. They have ruled on two previous cases that access to foriegn counsel will not affect a conviction and is not grounds for reversal or a new trial.

    Try again.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  10. #210
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Once again, you didn't bother to read my post. I wasn't talking about the Supreme Court ruling on this case. They have ruled on two previous cases that access to foriegn counsel will not affect a conviction and is not grounds for reversal or a new trial.

    Try again.
    Why do these people think that calling a consulate is a get-out-of-jail free card?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Page 21 of 29 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •