• 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!

U.N. asks Texas to commute Mexican's death sentence

Ikari said:
I know about it, but it's still punishment. Jail is not a nice place, it's not fun to be there. Even if you've been there long enough to come to terms with your incarceration. It's still jail, you're still not free. I think it's foolish to state that it's not a punishment because people can become institutionalized. Particularly in some argument in which you use such unproven statements like "it's not a punishment" to excuse greater punishment such as the death penalty. More so in the light that the DP system has grave failure states, is expensive, and for the most part in today's society...pointless.
Click to expand...

Have you been in jail before?
 
The UN is arguably the most corrupt organization in the history of the world.

The mere fact that they asked that this guy's sentence be commuted means we should probably execute him twice.
 
Ikari said:
About as well as you know what it's like to spend the rest of your life in jail without parole.
Click to expand...

I worked in a jail, I know first hand the treatment they get.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Answering questions with more questions? Please show me the requirement in the Vienna Convention that he be informed? I read the Vienna Convention and didn't see any requirement to inform, only to comply when asked. Maybe I missed it so please quote it with a link.
Click to expand...

Article 36; Clause 1; Sub-clause b last sentence

The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without
delay of his rights under this subparagraph;
Click to expand...
 
VanceMack said:
I dont pretend to be a constitutional scholar because I have read a few peoples opinions...certainly not because I have read the minority (or for that matter majority) court opinions that coincides what I want the legal definitions to be. My degree fields dont go near consitutional law. However we DO have appeals court and supreme court opinions on treaties...yes? Even 'opinions' that you disagree with. Im relatively certain they probably trump a blogged opinion.

Again...I respect that you have read them. One has to assume that if Texas is indeed behaving in an unconstitutional manner the SCOTUS will in fact intercede. If they dont...well...
Click to expand...

I majored in Poli Sci and also got my first master's in the field, so I have read many SCOTUS opinions. You know, SCOTUS doesn't speak ex cathedra. They make mistakes. They have in the past and they still do. As citizens, we have the right and responsiblity to question the decisions and opinions of the SCOTUS.
 
ludahai said:
I majored in Poli Sci and also got my first master's in the field, so I have read many SCOTUS opinions. You know, SCOTUS doesn't speak ex cathedra. They make mistakes. They have in the past and they still do. As citizens, we have the right and responsiblity to question the decisions and opinions of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Of course you have the 'right'. Expertise isnt the same thing. The supreme courts decision is pretty logical...if the court cases are not compromised, there is no need to retry the cases. In virtually every case that was reviewed (all 51) several executions were carried out and most of the sentences were commuted to life sentence. No compromise. And now those individuals are buried in prison for the rest of their lives and those very concerned citizens dont give them a seconds thought.
 
ludahai said:
You know, SCOTUS doesn't speak ex cathedra. They make mistakes. They have in the past and they still do. As citizens, we have the right and responsiblity to question the decisions and opinions of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
It seems rather straightforward... only Congress has the power to make law, and we have established procedures for how that is to occur. The Executive branch can sign all the treaties it wants, but it cannot bypass Congress. If the treaty is as important as people believe, they should convince their legislators to make it law.
 
Taylor said:
It seems rather straightforward... only Congress has the power to make law, and we have established procedures for how that is to occur. The Executive branch can sign all the treaties it wants, but it cannot bypass Congress. If the treaty is as important as people believe, they should convince their legislators to make it law.
Click to expand...

Very good.
 
Taylor said:
It seems rather straightforward... only Congress has the power to make law, and we have established procedures for how that is to occur. The Executive branch can sign all the treaties it wants, but it cannot bypass Congress. If the treaty is as important as people believe, they should convince their legislators to make it law.
Click to expand...

...

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

Treaty Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

Having a basic understanding of constitutional law may help.
 
VanceMack said:
Of course you have the 'right'. Expertise isnt the same thing. The supreme courts decision is pretty logical...if the court cases are not compromised, there is no need to retry the cases. In virtually every case that was reviewed (all 51) several executions were carried out and most of the sentences were commuted to life sentence. No compromise. And now those individuals are buried in prison for the rest of their lives and those very concerned citizens dont give them a seconds thought.
Click to expand...

Once again, I am not defending the murderers and if Texas wishes to use the death penalty, I don't have a problem with it. However, I am concerned that the US upholds the same treaty obligations that the US expects other signatories to the treaty to uphold.
 
Taylor said:
It seems rather straightforward... only Congress has the power to make law, and we have established procedures for how that is to occur. The Executive branch can sign all the treaties it wants, but it cannot bypass Congress. If the treaty is as important as people believe, they should convince their legislators to make it law.
Click to expand...

Did you read the Constitution? Article Six binds the States and all judges in those states to any and all treaties that are signed and ratified. You did know that the Senate does have a hand in the Treaty process, I presume.
 
ludahai said:
Once again, I am not defending the murderers and if Texas wishes to use the death penalty, I don't have a problem with it. However, I am concerned that the US upholds the same treaty obligations that the US expects other signatories to the treaty to uphold.
Click to expand...

This case has been out there for 16 years. In the other premier case that the Supreme Court ruled on. the individual was arrested, tried and convicted for raping and murdering both a 15 and a 16 year old. It wasnt until 10 years after the fact that there became this sudden concern about his citizenship. The simple reality is that the treaty was enacted to ensure citizens recieve 'rights.' The US Consulate in mejico has a position paper they issue to people....basically what it says is "hey junior...dont **** up in mejico." The dont provide counsel or legal advice and they dont in any way interfere in mejican law processes. It advises them of how stuff is 'supposed' to work but offers no guarantees that the mejican government will follow its own rules and laws, and forget about OUR rules and laws.

In theses cases we are discussing the individuals recieved legal counsel, had trials and appeals. They recieve far better care in US jails than in mejican jails. The ultimate fact is they rapend and murdered someone. They recieved fair trials and were convicted and sentenced. The SCOTUS ruling is that consulate notification would have no impact on that process.

How many people are still banging the drum for those people who'se death sentences have been commuted to life without parole? Like I said...out of sight...out of mind. Its an anti-death penalty argument...not a personal right or wrong argument.
 
VanceMack said:
This case has been out there for 16 years. In the other premier case that the Supreme Court ruled on. the individual was arrested, tried and convicted for raping and murdering both a 15 and a 16 year old. It wasnt until 10 years after the fact that there became this sudden concern about his citizenship. The simple reality is that the treaty was enacted to ensure citizens recieve 'rights.' The US Consulate in mejico has a position paper they issue to people....basically what it says is "hey junior...dont **** up in mejico." The dont provide counsel or legal advice and they dont in any way interfere in mejican law processes. It advises them of how stuff is 'supposed' to work but offers no guarantees that the mejican government will follow its own rules and laws, and forget about OUR rules and laws.

In theses cases we are discussing the individuals recieved legal counsel, had trials and appeals. They recieve far better care in US jails than in mejican jails. The ultimate fact is they rapend and murdered someone. They recieved fair trials and were convicted and sentenced. The SCOTUS ruling is that consulate notification would have no impact on that process.

How many people are still banging the drum for those people who'se death sentences have been commuted to life without parole? Like I said...out of sight...out of mind. Its an anti-death penalty argument...not a personal right or wrong argument.
Click to expand...

None of what you say changes the fact that the U.S. is in violation of a treaty that was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.
 
ludahai said:
None of what you say changes the fact that the U.S. is in violation of a treaty that was signed by the President and ratified by the Senate.
Click to expand...

None of what you say changes the fact that the supreme court has ruled that the states are not beholden to the treaty where there is no evidence or suggestion that the individual was denied due process.
 
VanceMack said:
None of what you say changes the fact that the supreme court has ruled that the states are not beholden to the treaty where there is no evidence or suggestion that the individual was denied due process.
Click to expand...

OK. So the Supreme Court is complicit in violating a treaty that the U.S. is a party to... The U.S. has violated its treaty commitment and international law, not to mention Article VI of the Constitution.
 
ludahai said:
OK. So the Supreme Court is complicit in violating a treaty that the U.S. is a party to... The U.S. has violated its treaty commitment and international law, not to mention Article VI of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

OK...that works for me. If Im going to violate a treaty I will be comfortable doing so with the backing of the supreme arbiter of the law of the land.
 
ludahai said:
OK. So the Supreme Court is complicit in violating a treaty that the U.S. is a party to... The U.S. has violated its treaty commitment and international law, not to mention Article VI of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Can the US pull out of a treaty? Or once signed and ratified it can never be changed?

j-mac
 
Prof. Peabody said:
I worked in a jail, I know first hand the treatment they get.
Click to expand...

But you were not jailed for life. So how do you know how it feels to be jailed for life? You got to go home every day, drive right off the prison grounds. It's not the same. And if you're saying that things cannot be inferred (which seems to be the point of your mindless questions); then you cannot know how it feels to be jailed for life without chance for parole as you have not been jailed for life without a chance for parole.
 
j-mac said:
Can the US pull out of a treaty? Or once signed and ratified it can never be changed?

j-mac
Click to expand...

It depends on the terms of the treaty itself. Some treaties do have provision for withdrawal from the treaty with a stated amount of time of warning. Many do not. Generally speaking, you may not unilateraly alter an existing treaty. I hope you are not thinking the U.S. should withdraw from the Vienna Convention. It gives U.S. diplomats protection overseas as well as provides U.S. access to U.S. citizens in foreign states.
 
VanceMack said:
OK...that works for me. If Im going to violate a treaty I will be comfortable doing so with the backing of the supreme arbiter of the law of the land.
Click to expand...

I hope you are comfortable with the possible ramifications of the United States violating its treaty comitments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom