Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 238

Thread: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

  1. #201
    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: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    5.) The ICJ ruled that the U.S. violated its obligations under the VC. But since the U.S. withdrew from the optional protocol, this ruling is non-binding. That does not change the fact that the U.S. is in violation of the VC. It only changes what can be done about it, which, from the ICJ's point of view, is nothing.
    1. The US withdrew from the Optional Protocol AFTER the the case was decided in 2004, so that argument can't be used.

    2. Even if the US were not a party to the Optional Protocol, it IS a party to the ICJ Statue.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  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: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I'm not the attorney here, it's not my job to find the state law. I'm merely pointing out that Art VI is not what many around here want it to say. Treaties and the Supreme law of the Land are not cut and dry as some may think. Nothing international nullifies the US Constitution and State laws.
    How does this treaty obligation contradict the laws of any state?

    Are you denying that the US is in violation of international law by not fulfilling its treaty obligations.

    I have also noted that your side has dropped the "Congress didn't ratify it" line. In fact, your guys are now completely ignoring the fact that you were WRONG on that count.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #203
    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: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    How does this treaty obligation contradict the laws of any state?

    Are you denying that the US is in violation of international law by not fulfilling its treaty obligations.

    I have also noted that your side has dropped the "Congress didn't ratify it" line. In fact, your guys are now completely ignoring the fact that you were WRONG on that count.
    I never made any argument about ratification, so don't group me. I only stated that Article VI is conditional, and therefore a treaty is not unquestionable. I don't know how it contradicts a Texas law, but I posed the possibility. Of course we should fulfill our treaty obligations, as long as they don't interfere with the Constitution and State laws.
    "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.

  4. #204
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I only stated that Article VI is conditional, and therefore a treaty is not unquestionable. I don't know how it contradicts a Texas law, but I posed the possibility.
    It's a good point and should be considered, but again, without any reference to a Texas state law that contradicts the VC, the point is moot. There might be a Texas law that contradicts it, in which case what you're saying is valid. But without any evidence for it, it's no better than saying monkeys might fly out of your ass.

  5. #205
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    But without any evidence for it, it's no better than saying monkeys might fly out of your ass.


    I'm sure this is on youTube somewhere.
    Last edited by scourge99; 01-22-09 at 05:21 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  6. #206
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Shamelessly plagiarized from Wayne's World.

  7. #207
    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: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    I never made any argument about ratification, so don't group me. I only stated that Article VI is conditional, and therefore a treaty is not unquestionable. I don't know how it contradicts a Texas law, but I posed the possibility. Of course we should fulfill our treaty obligations, as long as they don't interfere with the Constitution and State laws.
    And I can't see how notifying a suspect of their rights and allowing them to contact Consul would violate the laws of Texas or any other state.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #208
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    It should be noted that the U.S. has apologized for its mistake in not granting consular access to the individual who was convicted and later executed. That was a procedural error. However, it was not an error that compromised the defendant's access to due process.

    In Medellín v. Texas (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition to block the execution on a number of substantive grounds:

    1) The Vienna Convention's language did not have the force of law--in other words, specific self-executing provisions--under which the domestic legal process would automatically be stopped or reversed were consular access mistakenly not provided.

    2) Congress did not pass legislation that was enacted into law providing a specific remedy for such circumstances.

    3) The defendant's confession was not obtained unlawfully.

    4) The defendant was not deprived of adequate legal counsel.

    Given the above findings, whatever one's position is on capital punishment, I don't believe the U.S. Supreme Court could have reached a different conclusion. Outside requests on the issue were, at best, properly treated as advisory in nature. Those making the requests lacked jurisdiction.

    Indeed, were jurisdiction expanded to those bodies by the U.S. Supreme Court, it would have established a dangerous precedent that would have undermined the sovereignty of the U.S., eroded the preeminence of the U.S. Constitution, and diminished the role of U.S. representative government. In my opinion, that precedent would have been far more damaging, for the U.S. and any other sovereign state, than the political fallout that has resulted from the decision.

    Personally, I would have preferred that adequate consular access had been provided and the error avoided. However, I believe the U.S. would have made a grave error had it effectively established a precedent that limited its sovereignty, reduced the paramount role of its Constitution as the ultimate source of its legal authority, and undermined the authority of its representative institutions by permitting an outside unelected body the ability to override authority that properly rests with the domestic institutions of a sovereign state.

    All said, on this matter, even as I fully support Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, I would err on the side of preserving sovereign authority. That was the much larger and more important issue at stake.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 01-22-09 at 10:35 PM.

  9. #209
    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: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Are we done with this now? I think we've correctly concluded that Texas was correct.
    "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.

  10. #210
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    It should be noted that the U.S. has apologized for its mistake in not granting consular access to the individual who was convicted and later executed. That was a procedural error. However, it was not an error that compromised the defendant's access to due process.

    In Medellín v. Texas (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition to block the execution on a number of substantive grounds:

    1) The Vienna Convention's language did not have the force of law--in other words, specific self-executing provisions--under which the domestic legal process would automatically be stopped or reversed were consular access mistakenly not provided.

    2) Congress did not pass legislation that was enacted into law providing a specific remedy for such circumstances.

    3) The defendant's confession was not obtained unlawfully.

    4) The defendant was not deprived of adequate legal counsel.

    Given the above findings, whatever one's position is on capital punishment, I don't believe the U.S. Supreme Court could have reached a different conclusion. Outside requests on the issue were, at best, properly treated as advisory in nature. Those making the requests lacked jurisdiction.

    Indeed, were jurisdiction expanded to those bodies by the U.S. Supreme Court, it would have established a dangerous precedent that would have undermined the sovereignty of the U.S., eroded the preeminence of the U.S. Constitution, and diminished the role of U.S. representative government. In my opinion, that precedent would have been far more damaging, for the U.S. and any other sovereign state, than the political fallout that has resulted from the decision.

    Personally, I would have preferred that adequate consular access had been provided and the error avoided. However, I believe the U.S. would have made a grave error had it effectively established a precedent that limited its sovereignty, reduced the paramount role of its Constitution as the ultimate source of its legal authority, and undermined the authority of its representative institutions by permitting an outside unelected body the ability to override authority that properly rests with the domestic institutions of a sovereign state.

    All said, on this matter, even as I fully support Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, I would err on the side of preserving sovereign authority. That was the much larger and more important issue at stake.
    The SCOTUS ruling wasn't about whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over us, it was about whether we violated a treaty. They didn't have to rule on the ICJ's jurisdiction, since we withdrew from that protocol in 2005.

    We signed a treaty in the 1960s, and as I understand it, because it was a non-self-executing treaty, part of our obligation was to establish domestic laws that would take care of those details. Obviously we didn't establish those laws, so the way I see it we violated the treaty right there. How am I mistaken?

Page 21 of 24 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
  •