The State of Texas V The United States Of America

[Strike For The South]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/scotus.foreigner.executions/index.html

Like were going to deport him pfffffft. He reaps what he sows

"Welcome to the thunderdome *****"

[Ice]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/scotus.foreigner.executions/index.html

Like were going to deport him pfffffft. He reaps what he sows

"Welcome to the thunderdome *****"


The Constitution's Article VI says "all treaties made ... shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."

"The Constitution means what it says," said Justice Stephen Breyer. "But there happened to be a few instances where the nature of the obligation or the intent of the party makes it difficult to enforce it as a binding judgment of a[n international] court. That is not this case."

Legally, he deserves a new trial if that's what the international body ruled.

I don't see where we are going to deport him?

Although, I do agree death is warranted for such a heinous crime of gang rape and murder. I'd be satisfied with that or life imprisonment with heavy labor.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Go Texas.

CR

[AntiochusIII]

Go Texas.Go legal international treaties. :dizzy2:

What kind of circumvention is that to say something like "Oh, we made a treaty with you, true, but you see, it's not applicable in our [provinces] because they are almost-not-really-wannabe-sovereign"?

The Constitution is clear on this case.

Of course if the evidence is clear, which I'd hazard a guess it is, the verdict won't come out particularly different.

[Boyar Son]

Go legal international treaties. :dizzy2:




what for?

crime was commited in texas

[Ice]

what for?

crime was commited in texas

Read the article. It is fairly obvious.

[Boyar Son]

Read the article. It is fairly obvious.

shrugh* oookay

*reads it