US doesn't honor treaties and Texas sucks.

[SlowwHand]

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

[Berzerker]

Jesus man, you are dense. I shall quote again for those of low intelligence.

Dont just keep quoting it, explain the quote. Can the Feds make a treaty that throws due process out the window? No, that treaty changes the Constitution. And this treaty changes the Constitution too...

Thats not what it says, Berz.

Sure it does, the Constitution has an amendment process for changing it and treaties aint in the process. Therefore treaties may not change the Constitution. How do you read it?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

The Senate does not have the authority to affirm treaties that change the Constitution.

[Berzerker]

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.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Berzerker


It doesn't have to remove any rights, it adds a burden onto the state that is not part of due process.

Due process is irrelevant here. The consitution explicitly requires States to abide by all treaties that are not *otherwise* in conflict with it, so treaties in and of themselves do not violate the state's powers portion of the constitution (10th amendment).

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I quote the 9th here because this treaty certainly could be considered relevant under the 9th amendment - the right to contact your embassy when accused of a crime certainly falls under the umbrella of a right that should not be construed to be denied.

The 10th does not claim that the states are free to ignore treaties; it states that those powers not delegated by the constitution, or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states. The constitution (quoted above by Oerdin) specifically requires states to follow treaties - therefore the 10th amendment is not relevant here.

[snoopy369]

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

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The law guarantees it's citizens. Let be straight about that.

Actually, the constitution does not apply only to citizens, except where it explicitly states it does (such as in elections). In most cases, the Court has clearly ruled that rights (such as due process) apply to foreign nationals as well, except during times of war and such.

However, in this case the constitution is relevant directly in relation to the States, and not to the foreign national (to whom the treaty is relevant, but not the constitution directly).

[SlowwHand]

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.

[Tiamat]

Isn't really just as simple as our founding father's made the rules and we as a united states are not living by the original rules created.

[snoopy369]

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.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Tiamat
Isn't really just as simple as our founding father's made the rules and we as a united states are not living by the original rules created.

No? The constitution is irrelevant here, as nothing unconstitutional is being done... unless I misunderstand your argument/question/etc.??

[Wittlich]

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.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not entirely sure where the Constitutional argument is coming from here. Yes, the Constitution says the defendant should get due process rights, but what is due process has never been defined in the body of the document. The exact requirements of due process is defined by courts.

I haven't read the decision, so I'm not sure what the Court has based their ruling on. So I can't decide the validity of the ruling.

[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.

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

[Asher]

Sloww is right here, Texas is its own country.

Please see to it that all American currency is repatriated from Texas.

[Aeson]

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