• 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

VanceMack said:
Due process was afforded to this individual identical to ANY US citizen. What wasnt done was a man that raped and murdered a 16 year old child that had been in the US since he was 2 years old was not identified as a foreign national and told he could meet with the mejican consul. Blame his attorney. The state of Texas arrested a criminal...Mirandized him, provided him a lawyer, tried him, convicted him, and sentenced him to death. The absolute reality is that if he had been sentenced to life imprisonment you wouldnt even know his name nor give half a squirt about him OR his rights.
Click to expand...

The State has the responsibility to inform him of his rights under the treaty. I find it hard to believe that through the entire process, the State of Texas failed to learn he was not a U.S. citizen. This does not exactly inspire confidence in the Texas legal system.

None of what you or anyone else has said changes the fact that the United States, though the continuining actions of the State of Texas, is in repeated violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
 
ludahai said:
The State has the responsibility to inform him of his rights under the treaty. I find it hard to believe that through the entire process, the State of Texas failed to learn he was not a U.S. citizen. This does not exactly inspire confidence in the Texas legal system.

None of what you or anyone else has said changes the fact that the United States, though the continuining actions of the State of Texas, is in repeated violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Click to expand...

You keep claiming what the state did wrong...the fact remains the supreme court sided with Texas, which means they are right, contrary to your opinion. And it doesnt change the fact the ONLY reason anyone cares about this is the death penalty.
 
ludahai said:
And you think SCOTUS is ALWAYS right? I hate so-called 'conservative' judicial activism as much as liberal...
Click to expand...

Both liberal and conservative justices voted with the majority in these cases, so your asinine comment on activism is moot.
 
ludahai said:
The treaty creates rights for the individuals of sending countries that the signatory parties are obligated to create.
Click to expand...
As I've been saying all along, Congress never created those rights. I don't think they ever intended to in signing the treaty. I'm not aware of any other country that has done so.

ludahai said:
The ICJ treaty, which the US is a party to, grants jurisdiction in cases such as this to the ICJ, not the Security Council.
Click to expand...
As I said, enforcement of said decisions goes throught the Security Council:

"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
 
ludahai said:
And judges are supposed to enforce treaties in accordance with Article VI of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
What part of the treaty would you like the judge to enforce? He can't exactly go back in time and notify the guy of his rights. The issue never came up at trial. It only came up as part of a federal appeals case, and the law says that arguments not brought up on trial can't be brought up on appeal. I think the only one who had any power to do anything was the governor. You can argue it was bad decision on his part, but it wasn't illegal.
 
ludahai said:
And you think SCOTUS is ALWAYS right? I hate so-called 'conservative' judicial activism as much as liberal...
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter if anyone thinks SCOTUS is right or wrong, our system says they are the final authority on issues of Constitutionality. It does not say they are infallible. Can you say Dredd Scott or Plessey Furgeson?

Right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder. To me in this case they were correct. If the treaty is to be accepted then the enabling legislation MUST be passed by the Legislative Branch
 
snilloctjc said:
It doesn't really matter if anyone thinks SCOTUS is right or wrong, our system says they are the final authority on issues of Constitutionality. It does not say they are infallible. Can you say Dredd Scott or Plessey Furgeson?

Right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder. To me in this case they were correct. If the treaty is to be accepted then the enabling legislation MUST be passed by the Legislative Branch
Click to expand...

So SCOTUS is complicit in the US violating its treaty commitments and thus will share part of the responsibility when other states throw this in the face of the US and deny Consular access or violate other clauses of the treaty...
 
ludahai said:
So SCOTUS is complicit in the US violating its treaty commitments and thus will share part of the responsibility when other states throw this in the face of the US and deny Consular access or violate other clauses of the treaty...
Click to expand...

No treaty signed by the Executive Branch is binding until approved by 2/3rds of the senate. I assume part of the consent requirement is the enabling legislation
 
snilloctjc said:
No treaty signed by the Executive Branch is binding until approved by 2/3rds of the senate. I assume part of the consent requirement is the enabling legislation
Click to expand...

It WAS approved by 2/3 of the Senate. It is a properly ratified treaty - as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread...
 
ludahai said:
Except that he is in Beijing and he knows what he is talking about in this instance... it will happen sooner or later... and I hope the person they will do it to is from Texas... it WOULD be fitting...
Click to expand...

He is in Beijing and knows what is going on in the mind of the Chinese government? Few Chinese actually know that.

And you want to sacrifice an innocent person from Texas because of something the State government of Texas might or might not have done incorrectly?

That is really a morally bankrupt position. Now you are getting into genuine revenge against innocents rather than showing any interest in justice. Sooner or later people like yourself show their true colors.
 
Grant said:
He is in Beijing and knows what is going on in the mind of the Chinese government? Few Chinese actually know that.

And you want to sacrifice an innocent person from Texas because of something the State government of Texas might or might not have done incorrectly?

That is really a morally bankrupt position. Now you are getting into genuine revenge against innocents rather than showing any interest in justice. Sooner or later people like yourself show their true colors.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out the potential results of Texas's breaking of the Vienna Convention...
 
ludahai said:
Just pointing out the potential results of Texas's breaking of the Vienna Convention...
Click to expand...

Actually that's not quite true. You said
I hope the person they will do it to is from Texas... it WOULD be fitting...
Click to expand...

That is revenge, not justice. You are wanting an innocent person to suffer because "it WOULD be fitting".

You see nothing wrong with that attitude, huh?

That's what often happens when otherwise ordinary people get a little bit of power. They can then easily learn to hate people because of their religion, the color of their skin or the place where they were born, and act accordingly.
 
ludahai said:
So SCOTUS is complicit in the US violating its treaty commitments and thus will share part of the responsibility when other states throw this in the face of the US and deny Consular access or violate other clauses of the treaty...
Click to expand...
Perhaps sometime in the near future we'll find out that an American citizen who has lived his entire life in Mexico violently rapes a 14 year old girl, then sodomizes her, then forces her to perform oral sex, kills her, brags about the ordeal to his friends, laughs about how she wouldn't die, boasts about her being a virgin, is captured when those friends turn him in, confesses the crime, is tried, convicted, appealed, convicted, and sentenced before we learn he didn't get a chance to talk to the US consul.

Maybe that will happen and we'll be truly sorry for screwing things up in Texas.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Doesn't matter...
Click to expand...

I think it does. Someone here said, apparently they didn't know he was a Mexican national. Someone else also point out that SCOTUS has ruled on this matter. So why is there an argument?
 
ludahai said:
So SCOTUS is complicit in the US violating its treaty commitments and thus will share part of the responsibility when other states throw this in the face of the US and deny Consular access or violate other clauses of the treaty...
Click to expand...

That is the job of SCOTUS, to determine if the actions of other branches of government are legal. In this case, they said the treaty is not binding because enabling legislation was not passed by Congress.

How many times does this need to be pointed out to you ???
 
Taylor said:
Perhaps sometime in the near future we'll find out that an American citizen who has lived his entire life in Mexico violently rapes a 14 year old girl, then sodomizes her, then forces her to perform oral sex, kills her, brags about the ordeal to his friends, laughs about how she wouldn't die, boasts about her being a virgin, is captured when those friends turn him in, confesses the crime, is tried, convicted, appealed, convicted, and sentenced before we learn he didn't get a chance to talk to the US consul.

Maybe that will happen and we'll be truly sorry for screwing things up in Texas.
Click to expand...

More likely going to happen with a person potentially guilty of a far lesser crime in a place like China and they will cause delays and inconveniences as a result of this...
 
Gill said:
That is the job of SCOTUS, to determine if the actions of other branches of government are legal. In this case, they said the treaty is not binding because enabling legislation was not passed by Congress.

How many times does this need to be pointed out to you ???
Click to expand...

How many times does it need to be pointed out to YOU that Article VI of the Constitution binds all properly ratified treaties on all judges in the United States and that all such treaties are the LAW OF THE LAND. What part of that do YOU not understand. Obviously, the decision was the result of activist justices. Read the rationale in the dissent - it is far more compelling and consistent with the intent of the Founders.
 
ludahai said:
How many times does it need to be pointed out to YOU that Article VI of the Constitution binds all properly ratified treaties on all judges in the United States and that all such treaties are the LAW OF THE LAND. What part of that do YOU not understand. Obviously, the decision was the result of activist justices. Read the rationale in the dissent - it is far more compelling and consistent with the intent of the Founders.
Click to expand...

They are NOT the law of the land unless enabling legislation is passed by Congress.

It WAS NOT !!! Simply ratifying a treaty does not make it law.

If Congress ratified a treaty that stated the US no longer had the right of a free press, do you actually think that would be binding and legal......... or should the SC overrule it?

If they were activist judges, then most of the judges were activists, liberal and conservative.
 
ludahai said:
How many times does it need to be pointed out to YOU that Article VI of the Constitution binds all properly ratified treaties on all judges in the United States and that all such treaties are the LAW OF THE LAND. What part of that do YOU not understand. Obviously, the decision was the result of activist justices. Read the rationale in the dissent - it is far more compelling and consistent with the intent of the Founders.
Click to expand...

At least one less time than it needs to be pointed out to YOU that while your reading and interpretation of the law is surely 'awesome', state lawyers and the Supreme Court have ruled that the states are within their rights...therefore...much as you want it to be the case, apparently it doesnt apply the way you believe it applies. Sadly, this particular scumbag that raped a 16 year old girl and savagely crushed her with rocks...this particular scumbag that had been in the US since he was 2 years old...sadly...he was not able to effectively employ this dodge to avoid the death penalty. Most 'thinking' people recognize that if you come here at 2, live here for at least two decades, and then rape and murder someone, and if you recieve a fair trial like any other US citizen, then you probably are not entitled to suddenly claim you are a mejican national to avoid the death penalty.
 
Gill said:
They are NOT the law of the land unless enabling legislation is passed by Congress.

It WAS NOT !!! Simply ratifying a treaty does not make it law.

If Congress ratified a treaty that stated the US no longer had the right of a free press, do you actually think that would be binding and legal......... or should the SC overrule it?

If they were activist judges, then most of the judges were activists, liberal and conservative.
Click to expand...

According to Article VI of the Constitution, ratifying a treaty DOES make it law... READ the Constitution!
 
ludahai said:
According to Article VI of the Constitution, ratifying a treaty DOES make it law... READ the Constitution!
Click to expand...

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:
SgtRock said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrVicchio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep, 17 years and mucho tax dollars later, justice has finally been met.
 
Oberon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oberon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom