|
Supreme Court Ruling Rebukes
the President
John F. McManus
JBS
Friday, March 28, 2008
President Bush wanted Texas to adhere to a World Court ruling
and the Texas courts resisted. After years of wrangling, the Supreme
Court has just agreed with Texas.
Follow this link to the original source: "Justices
Rebuff Bush and World Court"
Mexican national Jose Medellin brutally raped and murdered two
Houston teenagers in 1993. For his crime, he was tried, convicted
and awarded the death penalty by a Texas court. After an appeal
on his behalf, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that Medellin
had received fair treatment and his conviction was upheld.
Because the murderer was not advised of his right to receive
legal assistance from Mexico's consul, Mexico sued the United
States in the World Court. In 2004, the United Nations body located
in The Hague told the United States that it was obliged to reopen
the case. Medellin's lawyers went back to court. The fate of the
convicted murderer and that of 50 other Mexican nationals facing
the death penalty in four separate states for similar crimes,
would again come before the judges.
(Article continues below)
In 2005, President Bush announced his support for the World Court's
ruling and told Texas to comply with it. Texas resisted and in
November 2006, its Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the case
and rejected the latest appeal. Speaking for that court, Judge
Michael Kaesler stated that Mr. Bush "had exceeded his constitutional
authority by intruding into the independent powers" of his
state's judicial body. At that point, lawyers for Medellin pressed
on to the Supreme Court claiming that a Vienna Convention dealing
with prisoner rights (from which the U.S. had already removed
itself) and an article in the United Nations Charter created binding
law for the United States. It was now the United Nations versus
the United States!
On March 25th, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the
latest appeal and effectively told the President that his powers
are not unlimited. Chief Justice Roberts pointed out that Article
94 of the UN Charter provides only that "each member of the
United Nations undertakes to comply" with World Court decisions.
He maintained that "undertakes to comply" means that
further action is needed, and it had never been undertaken by
the U.S. Congress. In other words, a President by himself cannot
make law based on some treaty. (Entry by the United States into
the UN in 1945 has always been considered to have been accomplished
by treaty, a very questionable stand that ought to be examined
more carefully.)
Justice Roberts was joined in his decision by Justices Thomas,
Scalia, Alito, Stevens and Kennedy. Dissenters included Justices
Breyer, Ginsberg and Souter. Justice Breyer pointed to the Constitution's
Article VI and claimed that treaties "shall be the supreme
law of the land," an extremely dangerous position that could
lead to undoing the entire Constitution. His attitude was roundly
rejected by the men who wrote and commented on the Constitution
from its earliest days. Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson each
claimed that treaty-making power is limited and can never supersede
the Constitution.
Referring to this significant ruling, White House Press Secretary
Dana Perrino insisted that it should not be seen as a loss of
presidential authority. But that's precisely what it is. The president
who consistently seeks more power — even imperial authority
via signing statements, executive orders, etc. — has been
handed a significant setback. The decision also separates our
nation somewhat from jurisdiction by the United Nations. And these
are most welcome developments for America.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
