• 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

justabubba said:
his trial was in the 90's
now let's see when you insist he benefited from mexican counsel:

gotta time machine or what
how did mexican counsel in 2010 assist him in his trial in the mid 90's?
Click to expand...

You continue to be confused by the terms "Counsel" and "Consulate".
 
ludahai said:
According to the Constitution, all treaties signed and ratified are the law of the land and all judges in the states are bound to uphold them. This is CLEARLY stated in Article VI Clause 2.
Click to expand...

...for the last time...IT WASN'T RATIFIED, THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT IS WORTHLESS. It was signed. It was NOT ratified.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
You continue to be confused by the terms "Counsel" and "Consulate".
Click to expand...

while you cannot speak for gill, are you now acknowledging that the criminal never received the mexican government representation to which he was entitled prior to and during trial
 
I thought the point was already made that the guy never revealed his immigration status prior to the trial. If that's the case, how would anybody have known to ask if he wants to exercise his right? I think a lot of people would have been screaming if it were found that they asked him if he was illegal or a foreign national based on him being Mexican in appearance...
 
justabubba said:
while you cannot speak for gill, are you now acknowledging that the criminal never received the mexican government representation to which he was entitled prior to and during trial
Click to expand...

He answered the same way I would have.

You also continue to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that failure to notify a non-citizens consulate is not grounds for appeal. If the issue is not brought up during trial, the failure to notify is moot and is not basis for appeal.
 
Jeezy said:
...for the last time...IT WASN'T RATIFIED, THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT IS WORTHLESS. It was signed. It was NOT ratified.
Click to expand...

It was ratified, but the Supreme Court has ruled that treaties are enforceable only if Congress enacts laws implementing the treaty language or if the treaties are "self-executing". In other words, international treaties are enforceable only when Congress passes a domestic law confirming the treaty requirements.
 
Gill said:
It was ratified, but the Supreme Court has ruled that treaties are enforceable only if Congress enacts laws implementing the treaty language or if the treaties are "self-executing". In other words, international treaties are enforceable only when Congress passes a domestic law confirming the treaty requirements.
Click to expand...

Mere semantics.

Congress has not passed a law to implement the Convention, and required states to abide by it. The treaty is essentially not ratified. We, despite being a signatory state, have not ratified this treaty as a nation. We're even listed as a nation that signed, but has not ratified, the treaty here: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite the so-called "foreign policy implications" the issue has not been important enough for Congress to tackle, despite the fact that the World Court convicted us of violating the treaty seven years ago, so that argument is out the window.

You can't trump a lower court ruling with a treaty that has not gone through the entire ratification procedure, just because the president is trying to change the law.

Period.
 
Last edited:
Jeezy said:
Mere semantics.

Congress has not passed a law to implement the Convention, and required states to abide by it. The treaty is essentially not ratified. We, despite being a signatory state, have not ratified this treaty as a nation. We're even listed as a nation that signed, but has not ratified, the treaty here: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite the so-called "foreign policy implications" the issue has not been important enough for Congress to tackle, despite the fact that the World Court convicted us of violating the treaty seven years ago, so that argument is out the window.

You can't trump a lower court ruling with a treaty that has not gone through the entire ratification procedure, just because the president is trying to change the law.

Period.
Click to expand...

Wrong treaty. The applicable treaty is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
 
justabubba said:
while you cannot speak for gill, are you now acknowledging that the criminal never received the mexican government representation to which he was entitled prior to and during trial
Click to expand...

Neither he nor his counsel (lawyers) asked for it. It wasn't raised as an issue at the time. His nationality was not raised as an issue either until much later.

That he never received Mexican representation has never been open to question and would not have made any difference in the final outcome anyway. The bastardo was guilty as hell and deserved what he got, just later rather than sooner.
 
Gill said:
He answered the same way I would have.

You also continue to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that failure to notify a non-citizens consulate is not grounds for appeal. If the issue is not brought up during trial, the failure to notify is moot and is not basis for appeal.
Click to expand...

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
 
Gill said:
Wrong treaty. The applicable treaty is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Click to expand...

Wrong graph. Right argument.

A treaty is not binding domestic law unless Congress has passed laws implementing it, or unless it is a self-executing treaty.

Congress has not passed such laws, and it is not self-executing treaty.

Essentially, the treaty is not ratified because the process is incomplete. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Not sure which part of my post you're referring to, so I'll answer both:
1) The text of treaty never confers rights to individuals.
2) Enforcement is not discussed anywhere in the treaty. But... at the time we had ratified (now rescinded) the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes requiring us to settle matters in the ICJ. Enforcement of ICJ decisions: Article 94 of the UN Charter:

"any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment."
Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice
Click to expand...

The treaty creates rights for the individuals of sending countries that the signatory parties are obligated to create. The ICJ treaty, which the US is a party to, grants jurisdiction in cases such as this to the ICJ, not the Security Council.
 
Jeezy said:
...for the last time...IT WASN'T RATIFIED, THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT IS WORTHLESS. It was signed. It was NOT ratified.
Click to expand...

I already debunked this claim. It WAS ratified. Your map was for the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, NOT the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which WAS ratified. You really should read responses to your post...
 
tessaesque said:
I thought the point was already made that the guy never revealed his immigration status prior to the trial. If that's the case, how would anybody have known to ask if he wants to exercise his right? I think a lot of people would have been screaming if it were found that they asked him if he was illegal or a foreign national based on him being Mexican in appearance...
Click to expand...

If during the process of investigation and trial they never discovered the man was a Mexican national, I am supposed to hane faith in their process? Really!?!??
 
Jeezy said:
Mere semantics.

Congress has not passed a law to implement the Convention, and required states to abide by it. The treaty is essentially not ratified. We, despite being a signatory state, have not ratified this treaty as a nation. We're even listed as a nation that signed, but has not ratified, the treaty here: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite the so-called "foreign policy implications" the issue has not been important enough for Congress to tackle, despite the fact that the World Court convicted us of violating the treaty seven years ago, so that argument is out the window.

You can't trump a lower court ruling with a treaty that has not gone through the entire ratification procedure, just because the president is trying to change the law.

Period.
Click to expand...

WRONG!!! You have the wrong fricken treaty!!!!
 
ludahai said:
WRONG!!! You have the wrong fricken treaty!!!!
Click to expand...

Read 6 posts above.

Then headbutt your keyboard for not paying attention.
 
Jeezy said:
Wrong graph. Right argument.

A treaty is not binding domestic law unless Congress has passed laws implementing it, or unless it is a self-executing treaty.

Congress has not passed such laws, and it is not self-executing treaty.

Essentially, the treaty is not ratified because the process is incomplete. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Again, wrong. Read the Constitution. President signs, Senate ratifies... you are simply trying to cover up the fact that you should have serious egg on face for citing the wrong treaty
 
ludahai said:
If during the process of investigation and trial they never discovered the man was a Mexican national, I am supposed to hane faith in their process? Really!?!??
Click to expand...

If it wasn't a federal investigation there would have been no reason to run checks on his documents. This was 20 years ago...we didn't have a lot of digital databases back then.
 
tessaesque said:
If it wasn't a federal investigation there would have been no reason to run checks on his documents. This was 20 years ago...we didn't have a lot of digital databases back then.
Click to expand...

you can't be serious.... you CAN'T be serious!!! (best John McEnroe voice)
 
ludahai said:
you still have it wrong... you just don't get it... and I posted before I got to that post, but you are still wrong... it IS a ratified treaty
Click to expand...

...all you had to say.

A treaty is not binding domestic law unless Congress has passed laws implementing it, or unless it is a self-executing treaty.

Medellín v. Texas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's essentially not ratified.

So you're still wrong.
 
MrVicchio said:
That's great. The thought of a scumbag killer dying in prison 40 years later induces in me nauseousness. In fact, I'm all for bringing back public executions.
Click to expand...
How is that great then? You are obviously misinformed enough to think the justice system is there to exact revenge for the victims. The fact that we still waste millions of dollars to carry out this barbaric practice induces nauseousness in me.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

Can you please point out where, before or during the trial, this Mexican was "refused home country counsel"? When did that occur?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom