Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 287

Thread: Mexican national executed in Texas

  1. #271
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-16 @ 07:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,441

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    According to Article VI of the Constitution, ratifying a treaty DOES make it law... READ the Constitution!
    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.
    Last edited by Oberon; 07-14-11 at 06:50 AM.

  2. #272
    Advisor Binky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In the land that is now.
    Last Seen
    07-19-14 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    595
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by SgtRock View Post
    ftw and ftun. This animal was convicted of raping and murdering a 16 year old girl. He is now in hell burning in a lake of fire forever.
    And he didn't just rape and murder her, he made the conscious decision to torture her and plunger her to death with a concrete brick. I'm hoping that girl was watching down from the Heavens at him finally meeting his death.

  3. #273
    Advisor Binky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In the land that is now.
    Last Seen
    07-19-14 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    595
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Obama's all kinda fail here. He failed to persuade Perry to stop, couldn't get SCOTUS to step in...

    And a "Mexican National" Whom btw had been here since he was TWO years old.... got a ticket to hell, may the Good Lord forgive his sins.
    Yep, 17 years and mucho tax dollars later, justice has finally been met.

  4. #274
    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 Oberon View Post
    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.
    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 America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    01-26-14 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    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.
    Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate

    Please educate yourself on constitutional law.

  6. #276
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    01-26-14 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,216

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    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 by Degreez; 07-14-11 at 01:12 PM.

  7. #277
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Mexican national executed in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    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??

  8. #278
    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 Degreez View Post
    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.

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





  9. #279
    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 Oberon View Post
    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...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  10. #280
    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 Gill View Post
    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.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 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
  •