Posted on 03/25/2008 8:21:54 AM PDT by Parmenio
President Bush overstepped his authority when he ordered a Texas court to reopen the case of a Mexican on death row for rape and murder, the Supreme Court said Tuesday.
In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas 6-3.
Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.
An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. 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.
Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court's rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president's declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.
The president may not "establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law," Roberts said. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
The international court judgment should be enforced, Breyer wrote. "The nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word," he said.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the outcome of the case, said nothing prevents Texas from giving Medellin another hearing even though it is not compelled to do so.
"Texas' duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that — by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention — ensnared the United States in the current controversy," Stevens said.
Medellin was arrested a few days after the killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in June 1993. He was told he had a right to remain silent and have a lawyer present, but the police did not tell him that he could request assistance from the Mexican consulate.
Medellin, who speaks, reads and writes English, gave a written confession. He was convicted of murder in the course of a sexual assault, a capital offense in Texas. A judge sentenced him to death in October 1994.
Texas acknowledged that Medellin was not told he could ask for help from Mexican diplomats, but argued that he forfeited the right because he never raised the issue at trial or sentencing. In any case, the state said, the diplomats' intercession would not have made any difference in the outcome of the case.
State and federal courts rejected Medellin's claim when he raised it on appeal.
Then, in 2003, Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice in The Hague on behalf of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row in the U.S. who also had been denied access to their country's diplomats following their arrests.
Mexico has no death penalty. Mexico and other opponents of capital punishment have sought to use the court, also known as the World Court, to fight for foreigners facing execution in the U.S.
Forty-four Mexican prisoners affected by the decision remain on death row around the country, including 14 in Texas. One Mexican inmate formerly facing execution now is imprisoned for life because of the Supreme Court decision outlawing capital punishment for anyone under 18 at the time the crime was committed.
Bush has since said the United States will no longer allow the World Court to judge the consular access cases because of how death penalty opponents have tried to use the international tribunal.
The case is Medellin v. Texas, 06-984.
Houston PING
Yep!
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
No big revelation there...
“Bush was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen”
Unusual? Bush has been siding with Mexico through his entire administration.
I’m glad to see that the two justices he appointed to the Court did otherwise.
Sure they did.
Is this monster claiming that he consulted with the Mexican consulate before he committed his atrocity?
Just another attempt to globalize us.
McCain will be all over this if we find out his mamma is serving in Iraq.
Now what will the “world court” do?
This was why Bush got involved. His personal feelings on the issue are moot. As President, he had to try to enforce the international treaty. For all we know, he may be glad the court sided with Texas.
Yes, as governor, Bush didn't typically intervene to stop executions.
Bingo!!!! at least one person on this website understands the president’s cnstitutional responsiblity...he had no choice in the matter...
No, he didn’t. One of the key questions was whether the treaty was self executing. He way overstepped his authority and the Court justly slapped him down.
Guess we disagree. Enforcing international treaties would seem to be a key task of the President from my perspective.
This goes both ways. I don't see how having access to Mexican officials in the US would change the outcome of the trial, but all foreign citizens should have access to their embassies when arrested for crimes in another country...the US as well as every other dirthole in the world.
Conservatives can be scary at times.
The Court didn’t just answer the self-executing question, but it also held that the President’s memorandum trying to force HIS view of the international agreement on the states exceeded his authority.
From the Opinion:
“The President’s Memorandum is not supported by a
“particularly longstanding practice” of congressional acquiescence,
but rather is what the United States itself has described as “unprecedented
action,” Indeed, the Government has not identified a
single instance in which the President has attempted (or
Congress has acquiesced in) a Presidential directive issued
to state courts, much less one that reaches deep into the
heart of the State’s police powers and compels state courts
to reopen final criminal judgments and set aside neutrally
applicable state laws. The Executive’s narrow and strictly limited
authority to settle international claims disputes pursuant
to an executive agreement cannot stretch so far as to
support the current Presidential Memorandum.” (Cites omit.)
That's what the court has ruled NOW. But there was no such ruling prior to Bush issuing the order. He was doing what Presidents are supposed to do - enforce our country's adherence to international treaties.
Like I said, for all we know, Bush is happy the court sided with Texas.
I do not see how he was denied anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.