[Elitiachirl]

You've just insulted Texas! You want Sloww to give you a roundhouse kick to the face?

[Larisochka]

boo hoo.

[ROYMANgo]

treaties dont trump the Constitution, and the Constitution defines due process - this man was given due process.

[Vezazvqw]

I have full regard for victims. I have more regard to the rule of law though because I believe the rule of law is the basis of modern society. We simply cannot live without it.

[sandracuk]

you cant do better than that? I read it, and it says the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land - and any treaty that changes it is null and void because treaties cant violate the Constitution. This treaty changes due process, thats requires a constitutional amendment.

[turbutbamethyg]

Thats not what it says, Berz.

[olivelappers]

CUT THE PERSONAL CRAP NOW OR BE CHILLED.

[teewHettive]

The law guarantees it's citizens. Let be straight about that.

[deackatera]

Yeah, sorry Berz, but no. The constitution applies when in CONFLICT with treaties, but if it says nothing about the matter it is not relevant. In this case, the Constitution is silent in regards to foreign nationals seeking their embassy, and thus the treaty takes precedence. The Constitution guarantees you a right to Due Process Under The Law, it does not remove any rights in this regard. It doesn't have to remove any rights, it adds a burden onto the state that is not part of due process.

[MaickiP]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The Senate does not have the authority to affirm treaties that change the Constitution. This treaty does not "change the constitution". You have a poor understanding of the role of the constitution; its role is to define certain ground rules and nothing more. The fact that there is a right to due process means only that it is unconstitutional to jail someone without going to court; it does not mean that the constitution specifically enumerates what must happen between arrest and conviction. That's for laws (and in some cases, such as this one, treaties).

If the case is as simple as Oerdin implies (and it rarely is, of course), the Court is way out in right field here. It's very possible that the treaty does not apply in this particular instance, or something else is relevant, but I'll leave that to legal scholars to actually determine

[OccumCymn]

What is so hard to understand? A non-citizen comes over here and commits a violent crime, but he's afforded more rights than a citizen?
Let me say this so it can't be misunderstood, **** that noise.

[Zarekylin75]

He is offered the same rights as a citizen. A US citizen in Mexico would be permitted to visit the US Consulate, same for a Mexican citizen in America. No difference

The treaty is to prevent countries from taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of a foreign national in holding and jailing him (and the power difference as well; you have much less power as a non-citizen in most nations than as a citizen, in terms of being given a fair trial or even being taken to trial).

What irks me most is this is a treaty that primarily helps Americans and does little if any damage to America. It protects tourists and workers from being wrongfully imprisoned by a corrupt government. We have lots of tourists and workers overseas where they are at risk for this, and as we don't have a (very) corrupt government (really!!) we aren't harmed by it. It doesn't claim to give the accused any more rights in terms of not being charged, tried, convicted, or punished; simply that he/she has the right to talk to their embassy for legal defense. I don't see why Texas or anyone else would care about that, as they will get a fair trial either way.

This is why Bush is strongly in favor of it being enforced - it hurts us much, much more than it helps us to break this treaty.

[topbonuscasino]

Well, considering that Texas thinks of itself as a Republic - it's just a small step towards Sovereignty.

Wait a minute...California also considers itself a Republic - I think I sense a pattern here.

[evammaUselp]

Texas was, and is, a Republic. That's fact. I have a real problem with some ******* coming in, not a citizen, committing a heinous crime, and whining about his rights.

I have even more of a problem with a jerkwad like Oerdin being so blind to the situation.

[pGJLweEw]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, prevent foreign nationals from contacting their embassy when charged with a crime, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Fixed

[avaincmolla]

Texas is a Republic - but so is California.

Besides, any court ruling can be challenged and brought before a higher court; so it's not the end of the world Sloww (but I do understand your anger with it all).

[ZonaPutaX]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Texas was, and is, a Republic. That's fact. I have a real problem with some ******* coming in, not a citizen, committing a heinous crime, and whining about his rights. Would you rather have it that his rights be trampled on? Because Snoopy is exactly right - this is a very, very helpful thing for Americans. The right to be in contact with your consulate is, on balance, one that benefits us the most. If we don't respect the rights of foreigners in our country, why should they respect the rights of our nationals elsewhere? It's not about coddling a criminal - it's not about any specific person at all. It's about respecting the rights of others so our rights, in turn, will be respected.

[esdfsdflast]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Would you rather have it that his rights be trampled on? Because Snoopy is exactly right - this is a very, very helpful thing for Americans. The right to be in contact with your consulate is, on balance, one that benefits us the most. If we don't respect the rights of foreigners in our country, why should they respect the rights of our nationals elsewhere? It's not about coddling a criminal - it's not about any specific person at all. It's about respecting the rights of others so our rights, in turn, will be respected.
Guess what? If an American goes to another country and does the same thing, I have no more sympathy than this pond scum. That's said with the full knowledge that Americans are at gretaer risk whenever they go overseasa. Why? Becuasuse we pay the piper. We negotiate too often. An American that does this is not better than some Mexican up here committing crimes, Americans are at greater risk, even when legally travelling, doing nothing. If you don't realize that, I can't explain it to you.

[Izzy]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The Supreme Court ruled on it. What else? Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court. They have to the power to overturn laws/rulings passed by the states. Of course, lord only knows how long it will take for them to review the case, if they even will.

[Arr34ston]

Ah... I've skimmed the decision

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...friend=nytimes

Anyway, it appears the majority decision is based on the idea that the portion of the Vienna Convention that deals with notifying the consulate of another state for a foreign national is not self-executing and requires a subsequent act by Congress to formulate a domestic law to enforce the treaty provisions:


This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that--while they constitute international law commitments--do not by themselves function as binding federal law. The distinction was well explained by Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 315 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51 (1833), which held that a treaty is "equivalent to an act of the legislature," and hence self-executing, when it "operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision." Foster, supra, at 314. When, in contrast, "[treaty] stipulations are not self-executing they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect." Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888). In sum, while treaties "may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be 'self-executing' and is ratified on these terms." Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C. J.).2

The other questions appear to be can the President tell the states what to do with foreign obligations, and the answer is no... there has to be a law, involving Congress. The President cannot self-execute a treaty by himself.

The last question is whether the ICJ ruling is binding on the US. The language of 94(1) of the UN Charter doesn't automatically make this the case and the language seems to indicate that it is the political arms of the state that is to attempt to enforce the ruling, not automatic judicial enforceability. As Justice Stevens, in his concurrence, points out:

Absent a presumption one way or the other, the best reading of the words "undertakes to comply" is, in my judgment, one that contemplates future action by the political branches. I agree with the dissenters that "Congress is unlikely to authorize automatic judicial enforceability of all ICJ judgments, for that could include some politically sensitive judgments and others better suited for enforcement by other branches." Post, at 24. But this concern counsels in favor of reading any ambiguity in Article 94(1) as leaving the choice of whether to comply with ICJ judgments, and in what manner, "to the political, not the judicial department." Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314 (1829).3

Btw, with Stevens (who concurred on a different aspect... the SCOTUS couldn't compel Texas to change its rules, but urged it to anyway), the decision was a 6-3 ruling.

--

Not that Texas should have just said screw it, though. They should have changed their procedural laws somewhat to allow a foreign national to bring a post sentencing claim that there wasn't notice given to the consulate of the foreign national.