Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Conservatives, Liberals, and American sovereignty

Expand Messages
  • Tim Condon
    The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments over whether a foreign ( international ) court could order American courts to do certain things. President
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments over whether a foreign
      ("international") court could order American courts to do certain things.
      President Bush is attempting to order Texas state courts to obey a foreign
      court. But those pesky conservative justices, Scalia and Roberts, aren't
      buying the sale of U.S. sovereignty, whereas those defenders of human
      freedom, Breyer and Ginzberg, can't figure out what the problem is, and
      think the foreign court giving orders to American courts is a socko idea.
      Bottom line: Real Conservatives are the natural allies of rational
      libertarians (Bush is not a conservative), and the Republican Party of NH is
      where every rational libertarian in the Free State should be registered and
      active. If you want to vote libertarian in a general election, feel free to
      do so, but when it comes to political party activism and actually winning
      elections, don't leave the New Hampshire Republican Party to the people who
      have run the NH GOP over the cliff and caused the present disaster (lost
      governorship, lost both Congressional seats, and possibly soon to lose
      Sununu's seat unless the increasing number of libertarians rally to help
      him, or unless Ron Paul moves to the Free State and runs for the seat as a
      Republican). ---Tim Condon



      October 11, 2007



      **
      Bush, Texas Court Tussle Justices to Decide
      If State Must Heed
      International Order
      By *JESS BRAVIN*
      October 11, 2007; Page A8

      WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday about whether
      President Bush can order state courts to obey a ruling from the
      International Court of Justice, a test of executive power that could affect
      the president's power to conduct foreign affairs.

      Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the White House has
      repeatedly claimed authority to act without approval from Congress or
      courts, especially in areas of national security such as wiretapping and
      terrorism trials. Congress and the Supreme Court have reined in some of
      these moves.
      � * What's Happening:* The Supreme Court heard arguments on a case that
      tests the president's foreign-affairs power.
      � * The Question:* Can the president, following the decision of a U.N.
      court, force Texas to hold an additional hearing before executing a Mexican
      national?
      � * What's Next:* A decision is expected by June.

      The question now facing the court is whether the president, following the
      decision of the United Nations court, can force Texas to hold additional
      hearings before executing a Mexican national convicted of the rape and
      murder of two girls in 1993.

      If a decision goes the government's way, the case could further concentrate
      power in the hands of the executive. "There's a potential, at least, if the
      court gives the solicitor general everything he asks for, that the president
      can rewrite state law to conform to his view of the best foreign policy,"
      said Michael Ramsey, a law professor at the University of San Diego.

      At issue is the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which requires
      that a home nation be notified when one of its citizens is arrested abroad.
      It also states that the arrested traveler should be advised he can contact
      his consul for assistance. The U.S. ratified an annex giving the
      international court "compulsory jurisdiction" to decide disputes over the
      treaty.

      The State Department insists foreign governments follow the treaty when they
      detain Americans, but local authorities in the U.S. have a spotty record of
      compliance, leading to complaints against Washington at the International
      Court of Justice. In 2004, The Hague ordered the U.S. "to provide, by means
      of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and
      sentences" of 51 Mexicans on death row, to determine if they had been
      prejudiced by the lack of consular assistance.

      The ruling set off a debate within the Bush administration. It initially
      concluded the ruling was unenforceable. But with the U.S. under criticism
      abroad for its perceived disregard of international obligations, Secretary
      of State Condoleezza Rice persuaded the president to reverse course,
      officials said. In February 2005, he issued a memorandum directing state
      courts to comply with the ruling -- while simultaneously withdrawing from
      the agreement to let The Hague decide any future such cases.
      MORE ON THE CASE

      [image: [More on the Court]] � Oral argument
      transcript<http://supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-984.pdf>
      1
      � International Court of Justice
      ruling<http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=605&code=mus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=128&k=18&PHPSESSID=a67e326cf3d544c9679bd306c3387112>
      2
      � U.S. government's
      brief<http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2006/3mer/1ami/2006-0984.mer.ami.html>
      3
      � Additional briefs and related
      materials<http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/MedellinIII.htm>
      4
      � American Society of International Law resources
      <http://www.asil.org/inthenews/avena.html>5

      Texas accused the president of exceeding his authority, and the state's
      Court of Criminal Appeals agreed. The resulting Supreme Court case pits
      Texas, backed by 28 other states, against its former governor, uncomfortably
      aligned with condemned inmate Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Houston gang member
      who grew up in the U.S. The European Union and dozens of other foreign
      governments filed friend-of-the-court briefs siding with the Bush
      administration.

      On the right, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia could
      barely contain their disdain for Mr. Medellin's position: that the
      international court compelled Texas to act. "Are you telling me that the ICJ
      judgment empowers either federal or state courts to do things which their
      laws do not permit them to do?" asked Justice Scalia. Donald Donovan, the
      attorney representing Mr. Medellin, struggled to find words suggesting that
      the world court's order already was authorized by the U.S.

      Liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, meanwhile, said the
      matter wasn't so complicated. "As I read the Constitution, it says 'all
      treaties made...under the authority of the United States shall be the
      supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state' -- I guess it means
      including Texas -- 'shall be bound thereby,'" Justice Breyer said.

      The case may come down to the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often
      strays from his conservative brethren to embrace the significance of
      international law. Justice Kennedy's questions didn't indicate full
      agreement with either side. A decision is expected by June.

      *Write to *Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@...6
      URL for this article:
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119202566569554691.html


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.