World Court urges U.S. to stay 5 executions

[David Floyd]

That's a fair statement, but my point is that the US didn't actually violate any treaty obligations. The US federal government ordered Texas to comply with the World Court, Texas refused, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas' favor. There was nothing else that the US could do to ensure compliance, outside of what it did.

Even though SCOTUS is a branch of the federal government, it's an independent branch in place to, in part, adjudicate disputes between the states and the feds, and in this case, decide where the line is between treaties signed by the federal government and states' rights as they apply to criminal justice at the state level. You can't say SCOTUS violated any treaties, because the US never signed a treaty obliging SCOTUS in advance to rule any certain way - in fact, such a treaty would be invalid anyway, in that it would violate separation of powers.

[SlowwHand]

Oerdin, give up on this one. We executed him. If you want to pursue it, there are 49 others sprinkled across America. We're going to execute another of them before long ourselves, from this very case. He's on death row now, but without a date set. Guess what? As it stands, he should be making his peace.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


What a lame comment. I say the US should honor it's international treaty obligations and the best you can come up with is a vague claim about Mexico? What the hell does that have to do with the US following international treaties it has signed?

Obviously that wasn't all I had to say on the matter, but since you apparently can't read more than two sentances at a time.....

[Hueij]

Roy Bean... The law West of the Pecos

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
... when it was obvious the state broke ... Federal law.

No, they didn't.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's a fair statement, but my point is that the US didn't actually violate any treaty obligations. The US federal government ordered Texas to comply with the World Court, Texas refused, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas' favor. There was nothing else that the US could do to ensure compliance, outside of what it did.

I'd be interested in hearing the screaming coming from Dallas and New York the day the Government of Canada said they tried to prevent Alberta from nationalising the oilsands, and shipping it all down a pipeline to Prince George and from there to China, but they were prefectly within their rights under constitutional law in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld provincial jurisdiction over ownership of resources.

There would be nothing more that Ottawa could do, outside of what they did, afterall.

[David Floyd]

nye, that's neither here nor there. That didn't happen, nor is it likely to happen. I also don't know enough about the Canadian Constitution and the relationship between the federal and provincial governments to even have an opinion on that. I guess if it was a major threat to our security we could just march in with the North Dakota National Guard and a detachment of US Army MPs for heavy fire support and probably take over the entire country, though

[notyoueither]

I see. An awesome level of approval for the rule of law.

Here's the short course on the Canadian constitution. The provinces own the resourses and they have pretty well sole jurisdiction over property within thier borders.

I grant it would be a significant enough issue for the rolling of various National Guards. I also observe that your idea of right boils down to might and is thus rather boring to debate. Might as well 1812 your ass.

[David Floyd]

In all seriousness, if Canada's provinces own the resources, then it would seem they can sell to whomever they want. OTOH, couldn't the federal government simply shut down their ability to transport the resources outside of the province? For example, if Alberta wanted to sell oil to China, they could do so, but the second the oil was transported out of Alberta, Ottawa could stop it, right? Another possible solution would be a 100% tarriff on the oil.

I think a case could be made that the federal government is obligated to do everything in it's legal power to fulfill a treaty obligation. In the Texas situation, it did so. I think you could also argue that in your example, China, by attempting to get Canada to violate some hypothetical treaty, would be violating international law itself.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Just like the Dred Scott Case I'm saying the Supreme Court made a very bad call for obvious political reasons. It was a 5-4 decision straight party line. The US signed a treaty saying it had certain obligations and passed a Federal law telling states they had to honor those requirements. Texas didn't do that ergo Texas is wrong.

The Feds cannot sign a treaty that is unconstitutional and expect it to be implementable. The fact that the Feds passed a law telling the states what to do is beside the point, if the Feds don't have that authority. Texas ought to comply with the World Court, but it's under no constitutional obligation to do so. Of course, they are ****ing over Americans overseas by refusing to do so, but Texas doesn't give a damn about anything but Texas.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oerdin, give up on this one. We executed him. If you want to pursue it, there are 49 others sprinkled across America. We're going to execute another of them before long ourselves, from this very case. He's on death row now, but without a date set. Guess what? As it stands, he should be making his peace.

You are a ghoul.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

You are a ghoul.

No. He's a high RWA. They're all like this. Texas seems to serve as an asylum for many of them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'd be interested in hearing the screaming coming from Dallas and New York the day the Government of Canada said they tried to prevent Alberta from nationalising the oilsands, and shipping it all down a pipeline to Prince George and from there to China, but they were prefectly within their rights under constitutional law in Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld provincial jurisdiction over ownership of resources.

Given the fungible nature of the commodity in question, why would we care if you want to make less money?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You are a ghoul.

I'm not a ghoul, I'm a realist. It's over and done. It's a shame for all, including him, that he was a ****up.

But, you want "ghoul"? Tell me how the others that are involved with the World Court's concern can possibly have a different outcome? Let others go, now?
That's the one thing that Imran said that makes sense. Precedent has been set. There's no going back now, on any of them, especially for Texas.

As for you, Agathon, you can get in the same line as the World Court, as far as how much Texas cares about opinion. Don't like it, stay out.

[rmsharpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara You are a ghoul.

Because Che Guevara never killed anyone... right?