<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><u>Justices Rule Against Bush on Death Penalty Case </u></span> By DAVID STOUT Published: March 25, 2008 WASHINGTON — In a death-penalty case that has become an international issue, the Supreme Court declared on Tuesday that President Bush had no power to tell the State of Texas to reopen the case of a Mexican who has been condemned for murder and rape. By 6 to 3, the court ruled that the president went too far in 2005, when he decreed that the states had to abide by a 2004 decision by the World Court. That decision found that several dozen Mexican citizens who had been sentenced to death in the United States had not been given the assistance from Mexican diplomats that they were entitled to receive under an international treaty. The center of the dispute is Jose E. Medellin, now 33, a onetime gang member in Houston who took part in the rape and slaying of two teenaged girls on June 24, 1993. The victims were abused for an hour, then killed to prevent them from identifying their tormentors. Mr. Medellin strangled one girl with her shoelaces, the trial revealed. He was arrested five days later, and signed a confession after being given his Miranda rights. Crucially, however, the law enforcement authorities neglected to tell him of his right under the Vienna Convention to notify Mexican diplomats of his detention. Mr. Medellin’s conviction and sentence were upheld in the Texas courts despite the 2004 finding by the World Court, and the Supreme Court concluded on Tuesday that President Bush had no authority to order the state courts to reverse themselves, no matter what the World Court said. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that neither the defendant nor his supporters “have identified a single nation that treats I.C.J. judgments as binding in domestic courts.” (The World Court is formally known as the International Court of Justice.) ....</div> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/washingt...nyt&emc=rss
I thought a Republcian of all people would recognize the ideal of federalism when he saw it. Great ruling.
a few thoughts; a) I'll skip a rant on the one world Gov't angle I wonder if the 10th amendment was cited c) Dubya has a problem w/ condeming someone to die? Hunting w/ Cheney is out? lol. d) Roberts was appointed by Bush.... Somewhat ironic.
Because the issue implicates the Supremacy Clause, the 10th Amendment wasn't really at issue. The key to the case lay in the difference between self-executing treaties and those whose provisions need to be enacted as state/federal law before they apply to individual citizens. I don't recall seeing the 10th Amendment cited at all, though it's possible I missed it. Bush was trying to play nice with the UN for some reason or other. Go figure. Funny thing about separation of powers and an independent judiciary - sometimes it means Presidents don't get what they want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] 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. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1] Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[6] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so. In Goldwater v. Carter,[7] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George H.W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[8]
