US doesn't honor treaties and Texas sucks.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah... I've skimmed the decision

Yeah, I just realized this came down this week. It wasn't helpful that OP linked a 2005 article, I had no idea that this was already done. In fairness, he did say "just ruled" however I skimmed right past that...

[asleepathewheel]

To add to what Imran posted, which I agree with his interpretation, here are some more interesting bits from the ruling (thanks for the link, should have been in the OP)

The Fifth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Medellín v. Dretke, 371 F. 3d 270, 281 (2004). The court concluded that the Vienna Convention did not confer individually enforceable rights. Id., at 280. The court further ruled that it was in any event bound by this Court's decision in Breard v. Greene, 523 U. S. 371, 375 (1998) (per curiam), which held that Vienna Convention claims are subject to procedural default rules, rather than by the ICJ's contrary decision in Avena. 371 F. 3d, at 280.

No one disputes that the Avena decision--a decision that flows from the treaties through which the United States submitted to ICJ jurisdiction with respect to Vienna Convention disputes--constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States. But not all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts. The question we confront here is whether the Avena judgment has automatic domestic legal effect such that the judgment of its own force applies in state and federal courts.

This is good stuff. Roberts gets pretty feisty when discussing the dissenters-I like the way his opinions read, even when I disagree with his interpretations.

As against this time-honored textual approach, the dissent proposes a multifactor, judgment-by-judgment analysis that would "jettiso[n] relative predictability for the open-ended rough-and-tumble of factors....

Our Framers established a careful set of procedures that must be followed before federal law can be created under the Constitution--vesting that decision in the political branches, subject to checks and balances. U. S. Const., Art. I, §7. They also recognized that treaties could create federal law, but again through the political branches, with the President making the treaty and the Senate approving it. Art. II, §2. The dissent's understanding of the treaty route, depending on an ad hoc judgment of the judiciary without looking to the treaty language--the very language negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate--cannot readily be ascribed to those same Framers.

The dissent's approach risks the United States' involvement in international agreements. It is hard to believe that the United States would enter into treaties that are sometimes enforceable and sometimes not. Such a treaty would be the equivalent of writing a blank check to the judiciary. Senators could never be quite sure what the treaties on which they were voting meant. Only a judge could say for sure and only at some future date. This uncertainty could hobble the United States' efforts to negotiate and sign international agreements.

Yes, I know that's a long quote, but imho, its both important for understanding the processes involved, and just pretty interesting.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by snoopy369
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.

You are right. It is hardly an onerous condition. Keep in mind we are talking about a state that kills children and the mentally retarded so I guess I'm not surprised they're not big on treaties either.

[Heraclitus]

USA


But I suppose US citizens can now be persecuted by any two bit dictatorship without having the right to copntact the US consulate.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
USA


But I suppose US citizens can now be persecuted by any two bit dictatorship without having the right to copntact the US consulate.

Yep, we better stay out of Slovenia.

ACK!

[Dinner]

The decision seems poorly reasoned to me. Congress did approve the treaty and they passed it into law plus the President signed it. That right there is enough. It sounds like Roberts is trying to twist and come up with excuses.

[Tuberski]

I only have one question about the whole thing, would it have mattered?

Would the guy have been found innocent if he had been allowed to contact his embassy?

Would his embassy have done anything for him?

[Dinner]

Does it matter that a victim is or is not read their miranda rights? I'd say yes. Following the law does matter and if you're a cop you have to be doubly sure of it.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Does it matter that a victim is or is not read their miranda rights? I'd say yes. Following the law does matter and if you're a cop you have to be doubly sure of it.

Why would a victim have to be read Miranda Rights?

All criminals are victims now?

ACK!

[Dinner]

accused.

[Wezil]

That's okay oerdin. I just figured you wanted to be thorough.

[Dinner]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The decision seems poorly reasoned to me. Congress did approve the treaty and they passed it into law plus the President signed it. That right there is enough. It sounds like Roberts is trying to twist and come up with excuses.

The difference between self-executing treaties and those that need Congressional action for execution has been around well before Roberts' turn on the Court.

[SlowwHand]

I think it's funny, all the attention for this guy, an illegal , and questions questions asked about what if it was a USA citizen in another country.

In the first place USA citizens ARE seized, ARE detained and ARE murdered, for the crime of being American. Does it matter that they're where they are legally? Evidently not. Where's your righteous indignation?
You misspend your emotion.

[Elok]

I half-expected this to be about the Democrat candidates promising to violate the hell out of NAFTA. Only that has relatively little to do with Texas AFAIK. BTW, has there been a thread on that?