Tweet
The States claim, quite reasonablly IMO, that they are sovereign entities under the Constitution with the absolute right to anyone who breaks state law under state procedures.
-
They can't violate the Supremacy clause. States certainly do not have such absolute rights."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon -
They can't violate the Supremacy clause. States certainly do not have such absolute rights.
The Supremecy Clause doesn't apply here. The treaty was for the formation of a court. It said nothing about the member states having to be bound by decision of that court.
Further more, the states can violate the Supremecy Clause if the executive doesn't wish to enforce the law (and he doesn't have to according to seperation of powers).“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Incidently, has this issue ever been raised before SCOTUS in a death penalty appeal because that would put the issue to rest pretty quickly.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
So the treaty under which child custody orders of for example the UK are upheld in the US in the event of a kidnap or death of a parent can be ignored by an individual state in the US if it wants.
If that is the case it really is very worryingSpace is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)Comment
-
Usually, it's the prisoner who appeals to the U.S. government. In Gideon v. Wainwright (dramatized as "Gideon's Trumpet" starring Henry Fonda), Gideon applied for a writ of cert from the U.S. Supreme Court because the state wouldn't supply him with a lawyer to defend against a burglary charge. That was the case which gave rise to the responsibility of states to provide free legal counsel to criminal defendants is state courts.Originally posted by DinoDoc
I would assume that the Federal Government is allowed to sue individual states in order block the the execution of inmates denied thier treaty rights under the Constitution.
In the Mudd case, the Supreme Court extended the "exclusionary rule" to state courts, so that D.A.'s could not use illegally obtained evidence.
Imran's right...at least in a way. If no treaty gives the World Court the power to overturn state court verdicts, then that was not the tribunal for these prisoners to turn to. They shudda been heading to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue their convictions were obtained in violation of international treaties to which the U.S. has agreed.Comment
-
Yeah that worries me to about the Germans. Oh I'm sorry we were talking about the US ignoring child custody orders. Silly me.Originally posted by TheStinger
If that is the case it really is very worrying.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
There's an international agreement on consular protection.
The US, and that is all levels of governemnt, is bound by the treaty, regardless of its internal law.
The treaty is self-executing (yes, I know the puns). It is part of federal law. If it weren't, the US is under an obligation to adapt domestic law accordingly.
The US SC has effectively voided the agreement by calling it not material in criminal cases. Given the role access to lawyers plays in the US criminal courts, this line is bizarre in the extreme.
Given the chronic violations by the US, other parties have the right to cede application of the agreement wrt US citizens. So far this has not been done, but it should be seriously considered.
As for the ICJ, I'd have to check the jurisdiction issues. IIRC the US accepted its jurisdiction regarding the agreement on consular protection.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
So the treaty under which child custody orders of for example the UK are upheld in the US in the event of a kidnap or death of a parent can be ignored by an individual state in the US if it wants.
No... see the difference is in the wording of the treaties.
The ICJ treaty does NOT specify that member states must abide by its judgments (if that were the case the US would never have signed on).
The treaty you are refering to does mandate something and thus must be followed.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Hmmmm interesting. That explains a lot.The Supremecy Clause doesn't apply here. The treaty was for the formation of a court. It said nothing about the member states having to be bound by decision of that court."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-BokononComment
-
Zkribbler: Should I take your post as a really backhanded way of saying that you don't know if it has ever been brought up as an issue before SCOTUS?I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Do you remember the case? I'd be interested in reading the opinion.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The US SC has effectively voided the agreement by calling it not material in criminal cases. Given the role access to lawyers plays in the US criminal courts, this line is bizarre in the extreme.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
DD - I would be surprised if it had. Texas would [probably] not be operating in violation of a Supreme Court ruling.Comment
-
"That explains a lot."
It explains about nothing.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
I'm trying to get MarkG to stock these, but being a Greek, and you know how THEY are...
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
I think it was Breard, but I may be thinking of another case. I only read this a while ago.
This should address it, can't be arsed to read it now though.
“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
Comment