• 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

ludahai said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Jeezy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
ludahai said:
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...
Click to expand...

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:
Jeezy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
ludahai said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gill said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do these people think that calling a consulate is a get-out-of-jail free card?
 
CarlF said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, deliberately taking the life of another human being is a serious step, but the murderer of this young girl, who committed a horribly cruel act still effecting her family today, must have been aware of the penalties. He took his chances anyway and lost.

You can call the consequences of breaking any law 'revenge' though I suspect the word is intended more to encourage an emotional reaction. as though justice isn't also being served. All punishments for breaking the law could be called revenge, just as that simple parking ticket.

The possibility of the death penalty being available says that societies and cultures value human life and if you take the life of another human being, the most heinous of all crimes, you are possibly going to forfeit your own life. You don't get a do over and promise not to do it again. It must be established in everyone's mind from cradle to grave that murder is the most serious offense imaginable, it is not a cartoon or TV program or a video game. It is murder and you will probably lose your life if you commit one. , Maybe this guy didn't know that when he murdered this young girl, but he should have.
 
Ludahai, you said earlier that
It was the State of Texas holding him and it was their responsibility to tell the SUSPECT of his rights under the treaty in accordance with Article 36 of the treaty.
Click to expand...

and I asked
Are all States of the Union now required to ask a person their citizenship whenever they are a suspect in a crime?
Click to expand...

Does this mean that everyone who has been a suspect on a crime since the early 1990's should have been asked their citizenship, much like the Miranda Rights?

As you know, there is a great deal of controversy going around that people should not be asked that question whereas this treaty, as you explain it, makes it the the law to ask if a suspect is a citizen of the United States or not.

It therefore follows that the law is already on the side of those who want to ask possible suspects their nationality in order to protect their rights and call the (in the case anyway) the Mexican Consulate. Should it be made mandatory to ask any suspects their nationality or is that already the case?
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Ludahai, you said earlier that


and I asked


Does this mean that everyone who has been a suspect on a crime since the early 1990's should have been asked their citizenship, much like the Miranda Rights?

As you know, there is a great deal of controversy going around that people should not be asked that question whereas this treaty, as you explain it, makes it the the law to ask if a suspect is a citizen of the United States or not.

It therefore follows that the law is already on the side of those who want to ask possible suspects their nationality in order to protect their rights and call the (in the case anyway) the Mexican Consulate. Should it be made mandatory to ask any suspects their nationality or is that already the case?
Click to expand...

In a border state, it seems logical to at least ask the nationality to ensure compliance with the treaty. Of course, Liberals will hate that, but too bad. Even so, I still find it hard to believe that in the years of investigation, trials and appeals, the prosecutors office and judges never established this man's citizenship status. Doesn't exactly instill faith in the Texas justice system.
 
ludahai said:
In a border state, it seems logical to at least ask the nationality to ensure compliance with the treaty. Of course, Liberals will hate that, but too bad. Even so, I still find it hard to believe that in the years of investigation, trials and appeals, the prosecutors office and judges never established this man's citizenship status. Doesn't exactly instill faith in the Texas justice system.
Click to expand...

But this law doesn't apply only to border States, it applies to all States. Under this treaty the police are obliged to ask everyone for their citizenship, which would certainly include Asians, Middle East types, etc. as well as native Americans.

This treaty and it's necessary enforcement strongly underlines the need for a National Identity card in order that all people not having such a card are guaranteed the rights to call their consulate if they are suspects in a crime.

The fact that this man was a Mexican is not really relevant when put in full context. The law was not followed when the question of his nationality was not asked. It would appear then that all the individual States have to do now is point out their responsibilities under this treaty and ask every suspect in a crime their nationality. This would, of course, be also used as a tool to help clean up the illegal immigrant problem.
 
ludahai said:
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...
Click to expand...

...review what about the case? What purpose would the review have served? Texas never denied the fact that the man never got his consular rights.

What would that review have unearthed?

Why postpone the execution to review what you already know? Why not review it after you execute him?
 
I agree with Sgt Rock. This guy had it coming.
 
The Toast said:
I agree with Sgt Rock. This guy had it coming.
Click to expand...

actually, you agree with everyone who has posted
no one believes this fellow did not have it coming

what is being argued is whether the appropriate legal process was followed
 
justabubba said:
actually, you agree with everyone who has posted
no one believes this fellow did not have it coming

what is being argued is whether the appropriate legal process was followed
Click to expand...

Would it have even mattered?
 
The Toast said:
Would it have even mattered?
Click to expand...

not to him
he would have been executed if complete due process had been afforded

governor perry used this as a launching pad to the republican candidacy


but the significance of our failure to provide due process to an alien is the precedent it sets for when Americans need access to American counsel when in legal difficulty outside the USA
of course, from reading this thread, you already knew that
 
justabubba said:
but the significance of our failure to provide due process to an alien is the precedent it sets for when Americans need access to American counsel when in legal difficulty outside the USA
of course, from reading this thread, you already knew that
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. Some people would beg to differ and say that a rapist and a murderer shouldn't have rights. Not necessarily me, but some people..
 
justabubba said:
not to him
he would have been executed if complete due process had been afforded

governor perry used this as a launching pad to the republican candidacy
Click to expand...

Considering the same thing happened almost 3 years ago I seriously doubt that.

but the significance of our failure to provide due process to an alien is the precedent it sets for when Americans need access to American counsel when in legal difficulty outside the USA
of course, from reading this thread, you already knew that
Click to expand...

The same thing happened in 08.Other than dictatorships and countries not friendly to Americans have any Americans over seas been screwed as a result of Texas giving the middle finger to globalist pieces of ****?
 
jamesrage said:
Considering the same thing happened almost 3 years ago I seriously doubt that.
Click to expand...
in this rare instance i hope you are right and i am wrong
but we shall see
romney is too mormon to be elected
bachmann is too whaack
the next republican in line (based on polling indicators) is perry
... can't wait to remind everyone about how he was gore's state election chairman during al's presidential run


The same thing happened in 08.Other than dictatorships and countries not friendly to Americans have any Americans over seas been screwed as a result of Texas giving the middle finger to globalist pieces of ****?
Click to expand...
i would prefer to take those actions which protect Americans both at home and abroad
 
governor perry used this as a launching pad to the republican candidacy
Click to expand...
That's false.

but the significance of our failure to provide due process to an alien is the precedent it sets for when Americans need access to American counsel when in legal difficulty outside the USA of course, from reading this thread, you already knew that
Click to expand...

If you are arguing that all Americans should be asked for their citizenship when suspected of a crime there are many who'd agree with you but the Obama Administration is against this "due process".
 
Last edited:
1. The Supreme Court ruled that Texas did NOT have to obey the treaty for the very reason that Congress has not seen fit to pass the enabling legislation.

2. This criminal (he was convicted after all) was NOT denied due process. He had a complete trial, was well defended - I have heard it said on the news that his own attroney has argued in front of the Supreme Court and was not some fly by night appointee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom