Texas execution 'violated international law', UN says

[Thomen]

I think, I can see where Mookie is coming from or is heading with it.
In my opinion, the problem here lies with the sovereignty of states and questions about if Federal Law supersedes state law or can impose restriction on said state sovereignty/law.
However, I think the supreme court would have decided differently if the case in question would have been a Federal case.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by Thomen

In my opinion, the problem here lies with the sovereignty of states and questions about if Federal Law supersedes state law or can impose restriction on said state sovereignty/law.

In my opinion individual states shouldn't be affected by federal international treaties.

As was stated by the founding fathers, unless a law or action committed is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as unconstitutional, the Feds have no say in the law or how it is carried out, unless the state law violates existing (constitutional) federal law (not laws passed and made retroactive)

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Anthony W.

In my opinion individual states shouldn't be affected by federal international treaties.

As was stated by the founding fathers, unless a law or action committed is specifically enumerated in the Constitution as unconstitutional, the Feds have no say in the law or how it is carried out, unless the state law violates existing (constitutional) federal law (not laws passed and made retroactive)

But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution would disagree with you:

Clause 2: 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(Emphasis mine)

[Rockstar]

I disagree with your statement that it's a "tight focus." I think it's an interesting discussion to explore why a country would sign a treaty and not ratify it.

You know that IS a good question.

But that's not how you first posed it. You hit us with something completely different and expected everyone to ignore your opinion how stupid the specific situation was involving an independent state, politics, a rapist and the Vienna treaty.

Then enter another emotional question, if I would feel happy about someone else's actions which have nothing to do with treaties and ratification but again with a certain specific case in Texas. Him you're ready to give a cigar for such a great question! Yet when once again when someone answers how they feel about it you tell them the response is irrelevant.

In regard to the above question. As far as my feeble mind can comprhend it's because the United STATES will not allow the Federal government, world community, UN or whatever outside influence you can think of tread upon or infringe on the rights of the states. As far the treaty being signed but ratified by this country I imagine it was done for the same reasons other nations do it. To put on a song and dance pat each other on the back and tell themselves good job?

It is nearing election time again so I imagine someone needs to start stirring the pot. Long live the party!

Speaking of irrelevance I think it was your own rant about the specifics of a certain case in Texas, your emotion, and the Vienna treaty which is irrelevant to your question why some nations including the U.S. sign but do not ratify.


.

[Anthony W.]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution would disagree with you:

(Emphasis mine)

Which is why I wish the South would've won. Save for the whole slavery thing.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

You know that IS a good question.

But that's not how you first posed it. You hit us with something completely different and expected everyone to ignore your opinion how stupid the specific situation was involving an independent state, politics, a rapist and the Vienna treaty.

Then enter another emotional question, if I would feel happy about someone else's actions which have nothing to do with treaties and ratification but again with a certain specific case in Texas. Him you're ready to give a cigar for such a great question! Yet when once again when someone answers how they feel about it you tell them the response is irrelevant.

In regard to the above question. As far as my feeble mind can comprhend it's because the United STATES will not allow the Federal government, world community, UN or whatever outside influence you can think of tread upon or infringe on the rights of the states. As far the treaty being signed but ratified by this country I imagine it was done for the same reasons other nations do it. To put on a song and dance pat each other on the back and tell themselves good job?

It is nearing election time again so I imagine someone needs to start stirring the pot. Long live the party!

Speaking of irrelevance I think it was your own rant about the specifics of a certain case in Texas, your emotion, and the Vienna treaty which is irrelevant to your question why some nations including the U.S. sign but do not ratify.


.

Sorry if I was unclear and/or insulting in the beginning. That is my fault.

[Tchocky]

The general path of threads like these being what it is, can't exactly blame you for trying to avoid it.

[mookiemookie]

Yeah, I was hoping for some input from another point of view on the finer points of it. I live in Texas - believe me I've heard all the "kill the dadgum slimeball and be done with it, he don't git no rights" arguments, so that's not where I wanted to go with it.

I get frustrated when someone doesn't get my meaning. I envy people who are eloquent and can succinctly and gracefully get their point across. Hence my rude behavior earlier in the thread. One of my flaws.

[Armistead]

No treaties override the U.S. Constitution, the supreme court has ruled such many times.

[Krauter]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

That should not matter, for better or worse anyone on US soil is granted the protections of US law.

Going by this logic then, what Texas did was correct, as I see it. He raped a girl and subsequently murdered her. On US soil, the girls rights are being protected and he is being tried under US Law. Rape + Murder on Texan Soil (US Soil) = Death Penalty.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

This guy was never going to be tried in any court other than in Texas, and under no laws but Texas law. He was going to be granted no immunity at all. He was just going to have access to Mexican consul.

So if the end result would've been that he would've been fried in the end, what is the point in calling in consul? Waste tax payers dollars as they draw on the process for another half decade and deny the victims family closure?

Waste of time, money and effort.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Krauter

So if the end result would've been that he would've been fried in the end, what is the point in calling in consul?

To maintain the reciprocity of international law and to preserve the rights of American citizens abroad to have access to a U.S. consul in the event that they are charged with a crime.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

To maintain the reciprocity of international law and to preserve the rights of American citizens abroad to have access to a U.S. consul in the event that they are charged with a crime.

So let's say this guy did get consular representation, would a US citizen then get the representation overseas?
Or would that be in good faith only?
Is there any guarantee that that would happen?
Or is it simply just a case of: look, we gave him the right legal avenues and exhausted our responsibility to the Vienna Constitution, now do the same for John Smith who is sitting in the French jail?
You can't tell me that this case GUARANTEES, if handled properly in the first case, by the book, that US citizen J smith gets the same deal?
Because if that's all we have to go on, possible guarantees, then that's not good enough.

Presidents sign treaties.
They are NOT binding until ratified by two thirds of The Senate.
In this way no president has the power to overwrite US Law, or the US Constitutionn.
This is why some treaties are signed, and never ratified.

Link from the US Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/...g/Treaties.htm

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by August

Because the United States has not ratified the Vienna Treaty would be my guess.

Just to make this one point clear, she did ratify said Convention on 24 Nov 1969:
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDet...n#Participants

then in 2005, the US decided that it does not want the ICJ to have jurisdiction if there is a conflict. (Ultimately, this is the US saying "I am Hyperpower. Ha ha!").
,
In 2008, the Supreme Court basically declared that even in cases that the United States had ratified are not binding on the States. Which makes the whole point of ratifying rather moot...
================================
Ultimately, leaving aside international consequences, this is Rough (or "Substantive") Justice vs Due Process. There is a reason for all the checks and balance in modern Western constitutions and law, rather than allowing "Rough Justice" to run amok.

And what is this about Reciprocity anyway? Is Due Process only to apply if some Third World country reciprocates? What happened to America's sense that they are indeed a little fairer than the rest of the world?

Quite frankly, the Supreme Court might be backing Texas, but the blow American prestige is a little big for the desire to hang one man.

[Feuer Frei!]

So where do we stand with this then? Ratified or not, currently?
If ratified currently, my question stands, post# 87.