Texas execution plan defies Hague order | World news | The Guardian
Posted by Graham on August 5th, 2008
–The US has become a State that not only thinks and speaks rhetorically about being above international law, but acts as if it is above international law. How long is the international community going to continue to allow this to happen (and in some cases facilitate it)? We must start to seriously question how much say the US should have over the lives of people around the world — acting as the international police force — when it flaunts every reasonable international human rights law there is.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Aw the poor Marxist crybabies have crapped and pissed the diapers again.
The United States government has never been granted the authority to enter into treaties by its member states that alters the nature of our constitution or charter.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Only the completely ignorant would call the Guardian Marxist. The hypocrisy of using the international system to impose sanctions, trials, and war on other nation states while pretending not to fall under such a system themselves speaks volumes about the use of the US Constitution by the right wing.
The US has signed and ratified many international treaties:
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/treaties/2007/index.htm
August 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I’m sorry Marxist your response shows how dreadfully ignorant you Euro trash are to the American federalist forum of government and Constitutional Law.
It well understood that while the supremacy clause binds the member states into complying with valid federal laws and treaties but there is one catch: These treaties and laws must be in compliance and in accordance with the US constitution.
Supremacy Clause
“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.”
However entering into a treaty that establishes a foreign court that is independent and not under the review of the US Supreme court clearly violates the constitutional law of the United States. The United States government has never been conferred the legal authority to bind the states to the decisions of the ICJ. Technically the United States government has no powers granted until it that are not enumerated or spelled out under the US Constitution.
Nowhere does this clause authorize the US and the various states to participate in the ICJ.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Now my interpretation of the US Constitution has been recently reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in MEDELLIN v. TEXAS March 25, 2008.
“Roberts said to accept Medell¿n’s argument would make World Court decisions not only binding domestic law but also “unassailable.””
Please also note this Supreme Court ruing on the question on whether the US Constitution can be amended by treaty.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1
“This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
constitution over a treaty” [Reid, at p. 17].
“… when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a
treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null.”
[Reid, supra, citing Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 238, at p. 267]
“No agreement with a foreign nation (no exec. orders, no Pres. directives,
no “accords” etc.) can confer power on Congress or any other branch of
government, which is free from the restraints of the constitution” [Reid,
supra].
So Marxists, crap and piss your diapers because the Americans refuse to place our nation under foreign rule.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
The hypocrisy continues to be breathtaking. Also, your geography could use some work as most people understand that Canada is not in Europe — though, I am sure that it doesn’t matter to you. Also, your use of the the term “Marxist” as a derogatory term is strange since many people on this site would describe themselves as such. Unlike in many social circles in the US, most of the world does not see Marxist analysis or socialist ideology as something to be ashamed of. In-fact, it is something to strive for.
Your use of the term in a derogatory way shows that your lack the understanding of what it is. It is on par with calling you a libertarian or an Orthodox Constitutionist — it is simply not an insult.
Also, the ICC and ICJ are not supported by Marxists in their present state as they have been used as a weapon by imperialists. The best example of US hypocrisy in using the ICC as a weapon for its own ends is in the former Yugoslavia.
Your citations have to do with American citizens, not foreign nationals to which the Constitution may not apply above international law. This will be seen from the current challenge that will go to the Supreme Court, regardless of your inane comments on this blog.
Your strict reading of the US Constitution to support violations of international law is astounding as it contradicts the whole point of Law — which is universality. It is also astounding that you would pick such an abhorrent action by the state to protect under a strict reading of the Constitution, which is not supported by anywhere near a majority of Constitutional scholars (see the wiki article below for a brief rundown of the debate).
The breaking of international law is a crime to be judged by the international community and the ICC and the ICJ was established by the international community and lead by the US with this understanding.
I do think it is obvious that the US State will even ignore its own laws if they get in the way. This can be seen in the President’s act of eliminating due process. To argue this is fine is on par with arguing for a change of rules, laws, and reality halfway through an event and doesn’t merit further comment.
Either way, your strict reading is not secure in history as it, like with most things in the application of law, can change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court&oldid=229061929
All through history, processes that were judged unjust by the people have been overthrown. The use of it military power by the US to isolate itself from international law and justice will most likely be no different.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Just a warning to all parties: Please be courteous with your language, and do not make ad hominem statements. Do not use foul or offensive language.
This site does not have a huge audience, but we try to keep to a standard of intelligent discourse in order to best serve our readers.
Apologies to all Leftnews readers for the abasement of the higher level of discourse which you have come to expect from this site.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
No, your understanding of our federalist is incorrect and bogus. That case law applies exactly to this case as US Supreme has recently affirmed.
The fact is the federal government is creation of the states and enjoys only such powers that were delegated to it by the states. Unlike your Marxist Canada the states are not provenances of the empire.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The federal government was delegated judicial power but that power is limited.
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
No where in the Construction does it grant the federal government any powers to enter into a treaty that establishes the mechanisms of international governance through foreign courts independent of review from the US Supreme Court.
Like a treaty the US Constitution is a contract between the several states and when international treaties come into conflict the US Constitution, constitutional law must prevail.
Read it and weep:
Part of US Supreme Court Decision against Bush and the World Court.
Moreover, the consequences of Medellín’s argument give pause. An ICJ judgment, the argument goes, is not only binding domestic law but is also unassailable. As a result, neither Texas nor this Court may look behind a judgment and quarrel with its reasoning or result. (We already know, from Sanchez-Llamas, that this Court disagrees with both the reasoning and result in Avena.) Medellín’s interpretation would allow ICJ judgments to override otherwise binding state law; there is nothing in his logic that would exempt contrary federal law from the same fate. See, e.g., Cook v. United States, 288 U. S. 102, 119 (1933) (later-in-time self-executing treaty supersedes a federal statute if there is a conflict). And there is nothing to prevent the ICJ from ordering state courts to annul criminal convictions and sentences, for any reason deemed sufficient by the ICJ. Indeed, that is precisely the relief Mexico requested. Avena, 2004 I. C. J., at 58–59.
Our holding does not call into question the ordinary enforcement of foreign judgments or international arbitral agreements. Indeed, we agree with Medellín that, as a general matter, “an agreement to abide by the result” of an international adjudication—or what he really means, an agreement to give the result of such adjudication domestic legal effect—can be a treaty obligation like any other, so long as the agreement is consistent with the Constitution. See Brief for Petitioner 20. The point is that the particular treaty obligations on which Medellín relies do not of their own force create domestic law.
I am sorry most Americans don’t want to make the world safe
for global government and multi-national corporations. If want an international court dictating Canadian Law that is up to you. But we won’t tolerate it. I bet most Canadians
would not tolerate it either.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Bret_G, I think you have a very selective application of the US Constitution, since as Graham said, due process has been ignored, but also: the Iraq is constitutionally illegal, as it was not approved by Congress. Everyone knows what American administrations think of their own laws.
You also presume we’re as chauvinistically nationalist as you. Just because we are Canadians (for the most part), doesn’t mean we want Canadian law as the standard for international law or governance. Canadian law has about as good a track record as America, and both are only a few steps ahead of the track record of one infamous fascist regime. Canadian and American law, historically, hasn’t proven itself any better than South Africa’s apartheid. That’s a tough pill to swallow if you ignore the truth of the matter, but both Nazi concentration camps and South African bantustans were modeled after the Canadian and American reserves/reservations–themselves established as a method of cultural genocide and assimilation.
But alas I digress…
I fail to see how you could think it injudicious for a foreign national to consult officials from his or her own country when facing something like the death penalty, a human rights violation according to many. If you or someone close to you (or even some stranger) were facing the death penalty in another country, say Mexico, wouldn’t you find it reasonable to contact officials from the US?
Finally, if you want to hold to the argument of limited executive power (which I think is fine), why don’t you just say the President has no authority, because there is no constitutional basis for the presidency in the US?
:’( <– me weeping. doesn’t it look just like me? heh heh, I thought I’d try to lighten up the mood.