Skip to comments.Written statement regarding the Consular Notification Compliance Act of 2011
Posted on 07/28/2011 12:52:09 PM PDT by american_steve
The past two years have witnessed a profound resurgence in public interest in constitutional federalism. While a number of States have been involved in this undertaking, the State of Texas, through the bold efforts of Governor Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbot, and former Solicitor Generals Ted Cruz and Jim Ho, has been at the forefront of this movement. Texas has led the Nation in enacting environmental policies that clean the air and water without imposing undue burdens on businesses and citizens. It has had a light touch in business regulation, and now leads the Nation in employment growth. And it has fought hard against crime and achieved an admirable record of public safetya remarkable achievement for a State whose political borders separate it from a region of lawlessness and violence.
It is that effortspecifically, the pursuit of justice for the victims of two depraved foreign nationalswhich is the evident impetus of S. 1194 and this hearing today. In 1993, José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national and gang member, raped and killed 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena. The rapes were part of his gang initiation, and the murders were intended to prevent the girls from identifying Medellín and his accomplices. Medellín was arrested, was given Miranda warnings, signed a written waiver, and gave a detailed written confession. But he was never informed of his Vienna Convention right to notify the Mexican consulate of his detention. On that basis, the George W. Bush Administration attempted to block his execution. In 2008, the Supreme Court properly rebuffed that attempt, holding that the Convention was not self-executing, that it had never been implemented by legislation, and that the President could not, acting unilaterally, give it legal effect. Medellín was executed.
In 1994, Humberto Leal Garcia (Leal) raped and murdered 16-year-old Adrea Sauceda. After she was sexually assaulted by no fewer than eight men, Leal carried her to his truck, where he raped her. Police found her dead body on the side of a dirt road. Leal had bashed in her head with a 30- to 40-pound chunk of asphalt and left her to die. I will not describe the full extent of the brutalities done to Ms. Sauceda, but they are a matter of public record. Leal admitted a role in the killing before he was taken into custodythat is, before any Vienna rights would even attach. He was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death. The Obama Administration sought to stay his execution so that Congress might consider the legislation proposed by the Chairman, S. 1194. The Supreme Court declined to grant the stay, and Leal was executed on July 7th of this year.
So, S. 1194 runs counter to Printz. v. United States? Funny how these potentates on the Judiciary Committee always demand fidelity to precedent from Supreme Court nominees but have no troubling designing bills that violate that same Court precedent.
A liberal legal utopia. I can just see the types of judges they’d appoint who probably wish they could grant some of these rights to foreign criminals now.
As usual, the issue boils down to liberty. The Constitution guarantees liberty. You nip at even a corner of it, and you strip all of us of our liberty. Once a tear, the complete rip isn’t far off. In this case, it’s the liberty safeguarded by the division of powers between the states and the central government.
First open borders, now courts without borders.
Successive challenges to convictions and sentences. Great. Meanwhile, as the courts back up on those cases, other criminals are on the streets. Anyone put thought into how much money this would cost to staff up the courts and prisons?
When people ask who is attacking the Constitution, I tell them it’s people like those who wrote this monstrous bill.
First open borders, now courts without borders.
So, S. 1194 would basically commandeer state officials into doing federal work, but we can’t have state cops or local police helping enforce illegal immigration law? What’s bassackwards here?
It is a very interesting read. I found a lot of it compelling, not having been up to speed on this issue before. If I understand him correctly, in this treaty there is NO judicial remedy for failure to notify a suspect’s consulate anyway. So it sounds as if it needs a lot of work, even if the policy is a good idea, which I’m not sure it is.
David Rivkin’s most salient point is that by brow beating ourselves for not meeting some fabricated level of legal protections, we give the actual human rights abusers cover. It’s as if some in Congress think that this one tiny aspect — contacting your consulate — is some type of abuse is shameful, because it implies they have no respect for our own legal system. Besides, who doesn’t know to contact their consulate? These guys are smart enough to create multi-million dollar drug cartels and don’t have the common sense to know that?