Illegal immigrant executed for murder of Arlington store manager

[SpencerH]

From the link provided by Straybow in the other thread

The Court upheld the rulings of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. The Court held that the signed Protocol of the Vienna Convention did not make the treaty self-executing and, therefore, the treaty is not binding upon state courts until it is enacted into law by Congress. Furthermore, Chief Justice Roberts characterized the presidential memorandum as an attempt by the executive branch to enforce a non-self executing treaty without the necessary Congressional action, giving it no binding authority on state courts. Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the opinion and Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, authored a dissent.

The opinion makes it clear that there is no treaty until it has been ratified by congress - who may not do so. All this talk about States uppholding treaty obligations is therefore just flummery.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The opinion makes it clear that there is no treaty until it has been ratified by congress - who may not do so. All this talk about States uppholding treaty obligations is therefore just flummery.

Uh... that's not exactly what the opinion says. Regardless, the US Congress has ratified the Vienna Convention. What they are talking about is whether treaties are self-executing or require action. A self-executing treaty immediate comes into force after ratification. One which is not self-executing (and that's a reeeeal fine line there) requires executing legislation by Congress to apply the treaty obligations.

Now, there are very many trains of thought on execution of treaties. I believe that the Protocol of the Vienna Convention is clear enough that it should be deemed self-executing. Though furthermore, I think ratifying a treaty and then not executing it (if you consider it not self-executing) is a bit silly... it makes any attempts by the US to say another state must comply with a treaty they ratified meaningless.

[SlowwHand]

Too bad more of these murdering scum can't be talked into self executing.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The opinion makes it clear that there is no treaty until it has been ratified by congress - who may not do so. All this talk about States uppholding treaty obligations is therefore just flummery.

Uh... that's not exactly what the opinion says. Regardless, the US Congress has ratified the Vienna Convention. What they are talking about is whether treaties are self-executing or require action. A self-executing treaty immediate comes into force after ratification. One which is not self-executing (and that's a reeeeal fine line there) requires executing legislation by Congress to apply the treaty obligations.

Now, there are very many trains of thought on execution of treaties. I believe that the Protocol of the Vienna Convention is clear enough that it should be deemed self-executing. Though furthermore, I think ratifying a treaty and then not executing it (if you consider it not self-executing) is a bit silly... it makes any attempts by the US to say another state must comply with a treaty they ratified meaningless.

Imran, I ask you a very simple question, a very direct question, not one based upon what ifs or what should be or what is so called right or wrong in one persons mind or understanding, but in actual current application of current laws/treaties:

Did this man have his rights, according to this treaty people keep referring to, violated?

I trust you not because your Staff but because you seem to be one of the more educated individuals here.


Thanks


Gramps

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The opinion makes it clear that there is no treaty until it has been ratified by congress - who may not do so. All this talk about States uppholding treaty obligations is therefore just flummery.

Uh... that's not exactly what the opinion says. Regardless, the US Congress has ratified the Vienna Convention. What they are talking about is whether treaties are self-executing or require action. A self-executing treaty immediate comes into force after ratification. One which is not self-executing (and that's a reeeeal fine line there) requires executing legislation by Congress to apply the treaty obligations.

Now, there are very many trains of thought on execution of treaties. I believe that the Protocol of the Vienna Convention is clear enough that it should be deemed self-executing. Though furthermore, I think ratifying a treaty and then not executing it (if you consider it not self-executing) is a bit silly... it makes any attempts by the US to say another state must comply with a treaty they ratified meaningless.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but six members of the Supremes disagree with your interpretation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Not to put too fine a point on it, but six members of the Supremes disagree with your interpretation.

Only on execution of treaties. However, they have no questions about the fact of whether the treaty was ratified. It was.

It means there is a treaty, just that there is a question on execution. The US Supreme Court has made a distinction on self-executing... but of course this is highly controversial in the international community.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
Imran, I ask you a very simple question, a very direct question, not one based upon what ifs or what should be or what is so called right or wrong in one persons mind or understanding, but in actual current application of current laws/treaties:

Did this man have his rights, according to this treaty people keep referring to, violated?

Yes. Though it depends on which rights you are referring to. He had his rights as a citizen of Honduras violated. However, he didn't have any Constitutional rights violates, due to the subsequent ruling.

Constitutional rights aren't the only rights we have, as seen by people who go overseas and yell "I have my rights!"

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yes. Though it depends on which rights you are referring to. He had his rights as a citizen of Honduras violated. However, he didn't have any Constitutional rights violates, due to the subsequent ruling.

Constitutional rights aren't the only rights we have, as seen by people who go overseas and yell "I have my rights!"

So being on sovereign soil with U S territorial boundaries, what laws were violated?

I see you saying Honduran rights but he is in the U S?

Like you said, people yelling "I have my rights!" but when it boils down, did those rights you refer to take prescedence over our laws and court proceedings?


Let me put it this way, in Maine where I was born, if a law was one way but in North Carolina, my home of 25 + years, couldn't I just claim Maine state laws?

No, because Im an American citizen.

Now, why is it this treaty allows special privelege to foreigners?

They shouldnt come here if they cant live by our laws!

Now, again, does this treaty execute itself or what am trolling or arguing, I cant grasp how someone not claiming innocence all of a sudden people say his rights were violated?


I am missing something, if its a right, why wasnt it implemented somewhere in past 7.5 years.

Oh and SLOWWHAND nice thread, been very enjoyable

[Imran Siddiqui]

So being on sovereign soil with U S territorial boundaries, what laws were violated?

It violates international treaties. That does confers rights. There are more things than US law that confers rights upon people.

They shouldnt come here if they cant live by our laws!

Treaties are the law of the land. The Supreme Court just believes that the treaties after ratified must be executed by Congress

[SlowwHand]

I don't see why there's an argument about what an illegal alien in Texas has to do with what is a perceived right in the U.S; especially since the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled on this one. What it boils down to is a lot of hot air. It's aready been proven out. One can make some kind of case for every person convicted of murder.
When the dust clears, they're still a murderer and if it's in Texas, buh-bye. Why people are so concerned over murderers who aren't even contesting the fact of guilty or innocent is beyond me. Screw this guy. He's worse than the Mexican. At least the Mexican apologized for his act.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sloww... do you personally think the only rights you should have are those the US government has granted you (as opposed to the reality - where the only rights you have are granted by those who have immediate power over you)?

[SlowwHand]

I don't think I have the right to kill some civilian that hasn't done anything but try to live. Evidently, some people don't grasp the concept.

[Grandpa Troll]

Well, hopefully, Texas has had it fill of slaughtering any foreigners who may not be aware of all laws and aid available to them from International Courts who should have say over local antiquainted laws such as murder when they do an "OOOPS" lets hope someone winks at them and lets 'em know, they got rights

[SlowwHand]

I don't know, but I assume he got his request on the last meal. Some countries don't even do that nice thing for them.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't know, but I assume he got his request on the last meal. Some countries don't even do that nice thing for them.

That would really suck though, if they screwed that up, being executed and not having your last request fulfilled