Supreme Court stands up for US sovereignty

[Xiahou]

In a ruling against the Bush administration, no less.

Mexico said American officials violated the 1963 Vienna Convention. when they failed to allow the citizens of another country access to its representatives after arrest. The world court agreed.

But in a 6-3 ruling March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court said the president overstepped his bounds when he ordered states in a memo to abide by the world court's ruling. The high court said a president must consult Congress before issuing an order based on a treaty.

Good decision- the "world court" has no legal jurisdiction over Texas courts.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Good decision- the "world court" has no legal jurisdiction over Texas courts.

Surely, that's not what the issue is.

The United States has signed a treaty, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Hague. The United States was found to be in breach of the treaty.

The US Supreme Court has found that the President has screwed up the constitutional process to ensure that a member state observes the United States international obligations.

As far as I can see, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the treaty does not apply to the United States or its constituents.

This is a good thing, otherwise, as the article notes, US citizens can be denied consular access when charged with crimes in other countries.

Really, despite your military power, you are not a law unto yourselves, and nor would you want to be, I suspect, since the USA was instrumental in fashioning the idea of international legal protections and rights.

[Big_John]

Surely, that's not what the issue is.

The United States has signed a treaty, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Hague. The United States was found to be in breach of the treaty.

The US Supreme Court has found that the President has screwed up the constitutional process to ensure that a member state observes the United States international obligations.

As far as I can see, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the treaty does not apply to the United States or its constituents.

the majority holding in this particular case is merely that 1) a previous ICJ decision doesn't preempt certain state procedural laws, and 2) the president's memo is unconstitutional (the president assumed beyond-executive powers in the memo).

both are basically technicality issues.

[Banquo's Ghost]

the majority holding in this particular case is merely that 1) a previous ICJ decision doesn't preempt certain state procedural laws, and 2) the president's memo is unconstitutional (the president assumed beyond-executive powers in the memo).

both are basically technicality issues.

That makes sense. Thank you.

[Tribesman]

So instead of...

the "world court" has no legal jurisdiction over Texas courts.

...its really , improperly processed thingies don't count until they are properly processed .
Wow , a real shock horror story

But thanks for the link Xiahou as it does have a real story there
Texan laws don't apply in Texas
Whats even better ?
American laws don't apply in America

[Xiahou]

the majority holding in this particular case is merely that 1) a previous ICJ decision doesn't preempt certain state procedural laws, and

Basically my point.

2) the president's memo is unconstitutional (the president assumed beyond-executive powers in the memo).

both are basically technicality issues.

The president didn't have the authority to order a new trial.

In other word, the world court's decision does not have jurisdiction over Texas courts- like I said. Bush felt there was a treaty obligation and tried to order a new trial- but he didn't have authority to do that without congressional approval.

Here's a link from the AP.

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

But the Supreme Court said Monday that Texas could ignore the international court's ruling in favor of granting new hearings.

[Big_John]

Basically my point.

florid statements like about sovereignty and jurisdiction confuse the issue.

The president didn't have the authority to order a new trial.

a separation of powers issue.

In other word, the world court's decision does not have jurisdiction over Texas courts- like I said. Bush felt there was a treaty obligation and tried to order a new trial- but he didn't have authority to do that without congressional approval.

you are misstating the issue. this was simply a matter of procedure. the court is making no ruling about primacy of law.

Here's a link from the AP.

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

But the Supreme Court said Monday that Texas could ignore the international court's ruling in favor of granting new hearings.

this is very sloppy wording by the AP. the ICJ ruling is from 2004 in a different case, avena, in which medellín was one of the people that prompted mexico to petition the ICJ.

if anti-UN/anti-world court types really want to find something resembling a contest of this particular international law vs national law, sanchez-llamas v oregon is a lot more pertinent. in that case the supreme court states the the avena ruling is not binding on the supreme court. but even there it's still basically a technical issue about how treaties operate.

So be thankful this isn't removing consular help to foreign citizens in the US as the reciprocal arrangement would not be very nice.

bush did withdraw from the optional protocol after avena, btw. though he said the US would still respect avena (via the memo at issue in this case).

I'm pretty sure the Senate will pass a measure to back the president's move and we're back to square one.

probably yes. the court is basically putting the onus back on the government to decide what to do about avena. bush's first strategy (withdraw from the OP, but memo-ize avena) didn't work, so we'll see if anything follows.

[Xiahou]

you are misstating the issue. this was simply a matter of procedure. the court is making no ruling about primacy of law.

I've still got to disagree here.

First, the majority held that the Avena judgment is not enforceable as domestic law.

That alone shows that the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the US. Part of the decision was over Bush's attempt to order a new trial. But the decision states that treaties have no bearing unless enacted in domestic law.

The idea that the ICJ's ruling should be binding by treaty was in fact part of the plaintiff's case:

"There didn't have to be legislation before Texas, and its local officials were obligated to provide notice in this case," Mr. Clement said, "and of course, it's their default on that treaty obligation by the state and local officials that has us in this predicament."

And again, this was rejected by the SCOTUS in its ruling.

Mr. Cruz characterized that as an intolerable affront to sovereignty, and he found some sympathy on the court.

Justice Scalia argued that to put the World Court ruling into force, Mr. Bush could have asked Congress for legislation.

That touched on a central dispute: Are states obliged to obey international treaties, and if so, who has the authority to compel them to do so and to review their compliance? The president? The U.S. Supreme Court? International tribunals?

link

I don't really understand how some can claim this ruling doesn't speak to the issue of national sovereignty vs international law- the text of both the arguments and the ruling itself does just that. This was no "technicality".

[Furious Mental]

Ultimately it didn't turn on whether or not the ICJ has "jurisdiction" over anything, but whether or not the exercise of executive power giving effect to its interpretation of a treaty was valid. That presupposes that the interpretation is not enforceable in its own terms but only if your government exercises a discretion to enforce it, which is what the US Solicitor-General said. From what I have seen of questions posed by the majority they were mostly concerned about the separation of powers (i.e. where would it leave the US Supreme Court) than "national sovereignty".

[Kralizec]

The ICJ basicly just ruled that the US is falling short of its treaty obligations. Bush tried to do something about, ignoring the boundaries of his own authority and was ruled down because of it. Where's the problem of sovereignty?

[KrooK]

This decision does not bind into international law. Since XIX century there is precedent that if country sign international agreement, it has to respect it - no matter what says his inner law (I think Alabama ship case).
So now every country can demand from USA respect treaty or they can just stop respect it too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, and if the US doesn't respect this treaty people can start disrespecting others in the US has signed. Mind, you extradite people from our country without burdan of proof while your Congress refuses to validate your end of the agreement.

If you want to be isolationist don't expect others to play ball.

[Papewaio]

International treaties like most diplomatic moves rely heavily on reciprocity "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours".

So be thankful this isn't removing consular help to foreign citizens in the US as the reciprocal arrangement would not be very nice.

[Don Corleone]

This is more a matter of SCOTUS standing on form on the wording of treaty ratification and enforcement, that it requires approval by the Senate. I don't think they were trying to say that local jurisdictions, like the traffic court in Butte, Montana, have the right to flaunt international law.

I'm pretty sure the Senate will pass a measure to back the president's move and we're back to square one.