The last portion of Art VI:
"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Is this clear enough for you?
Exactly which Texas state law is contrary to the VC's provision that sending states must be notified when a receiving state arrests one of their citizens? Unless you can show a Texas state law that prohibits notifying the sending state, you have failed.
Let's review:
1.) The VC has two relevant provisions:
a. Receiving states must notify sending states when a citizen of the sending state is arrested. Receiving states must notify the suspect of his rights to Consular relations with his/her home state without delay.
b. (optional) The ICJ shall have jurisdiction on matters where a disagreement arises.
2.) The U.S. ratified the VC in 1969.
3.) The U.S. withdrew from the optional provision b in 2005. It did not withdraw from the VC as a whole.
4.) The U.S. plainly and obviously did not notify this suspect of his Consular rights under the VC. Since the U.S. ratified the VC in 1969, and only withdrew from ONE of the optional provisions, the U.S. is in clear violation of a treaty that it ratified.
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.
It is ridiculous on its face to claim that the U.S. is not in violation of the VC simply because the ICJ's ruling is non-binding. That's like stealing something, and then claiming you never stole anything because you simply weren't caught or there can be no punishment. Fallacious and dishonest to the core!
It's also a red-herring and a strawman to claim that recognizing the U.S.'s failure to abide by its treaty obligations consitutes any sort of dismissal of the crimes that were committed. Fallacious and dishonest again!
And to let emotions toward this piece of **** scumbag cloud and distort the plain and obvious fact that a treaty was broken is a significant and alarming disregard for the law of the land. You don't get to make up the law as you go, based on how you feel about a person. That is also fallacious and dishonest!
I can't believe the shameless inability and/or flat out refusal to keep separate issues separate in this thread. It blows my mind.