Posted on 04/01/2008 1:51:44 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
The Supreme Court Stands Alone by Thomas P. Kilgannon
Dulles, Virginia -- The World Court got a whoopin last week when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Medellin v. Texas, which involves Jose Medellin, a death row inmate convicted of rape and murder of two teenage girls in 1993. Writing the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts informed the wig-wearing jurists at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Texas courts are under no obligation to obey the ICJ’s ruling to give Medellin a new hearing.
Medellin is a gang member and a Mexican national. When he was arrested for, and confessed to, his heinous crime, authorities failed to inform him of his right under the Vienna Convention to notify the Mexican consulate. He found his way to the World Court with 50 other Mexican nationals who claimed a similar fate.
On March 31, 2004, the ICJ unanimously ruled that the United States violated Medellin’s rights and ordered the U.S. to “provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence.” The UN court informed the United States that its judgment was “final, without appeal and binding on the Parties.” Guess again, said the Supreme Court.
“[N]ot all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in the United States courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. He observed that allowing “the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by ‘many of our most fundamental constitutional protections,’” was never a consideration of those who negotiated the UN Charter -- the treaty that created the ICJ.
The majority opinion in Medellin, correctly categorizes this and other ICJ verdicts not as orders from a legitimate magistrate that are binding, but rather, as diplomatic judgments to be taken under advisement by national governments.
In so doing, it raises for inspection this notion of “international law.” Global governance activists insist that a body of universal law exists to which nations and their citizens are legally bound to conform. They believe there is a judicial hierarchy in which our Constitution can be trumped by the UN Charter and the Supreme Court overruled by foreigners.
In fact, obedience to “international law” is really the art of diplomacy. Rulings from the ICJ and other UN institutions are nothing more than political footballs for governments to kick around. They are adhered to only to the extent that nations choose to do so.
Medellin is a case in point. When the ICJ issued its ruling, President Bush caved -- not to international authority, but to international opinion. “I have determined,” the President wrote to the Attorney General, “that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice...by having State courts give effect to the decision.”
He did so because he was under diplomatic and media pressure for mishaps at Abu Ghraib, false accusations about Guantanamo Bay, and for hurting the delicate feelings of our European allies. It was a crass political decision to put the interests of global elites and their glee club in the State Department over those of justice.
So the good news is that a majority of the Supreme Court understands that “international law” is conceptual and voluntary. The bad news is that too many in government believe that the U.S. should be bound at all costs by the UN Charter, the World Trade Organization, the International Seabed Authority, and the International Criminal Court, to name a few.
This cornucopia of courts sets the rules and to all of them Uncle Sam must abide, according to John Bellinger, legal advisor to Condi Rice. “Rather than leaving it to politicians to decide when to comply with our international obligations,” Mr. Bellinger explained in a speech at The Hague last June, “our system goes to great lengths to attach serious legal consequences to international rules.”
Bellinger’s comments highlight the arrogance of too many in the legal community -- both domestic and international -- who believe that the creation, interpretation, and enforcement of law is a wholly owned enterprise of lawyers and judges. Fortunately, the Medellin decision allowed Chief Justice John Roberts to set him straight.
“Our Framers,” Roberts reminded us, “established a careful set of procedures that must be followed before federal law can be created under the Constitution -- vesting that decision in the political branches, subject to checks and balances.”
In other words, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
The sovereignty of the United States shall not be infringed. It is so ordered.
Mr. Kilgannon is the president of Freedom Alliance, an educational foundation dedicated to the preservation of American sovereignty. He is the author of "Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair With the United Nations."
This makes me proud.
The World Court got a whoopin last week when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Medellin v. Texas
Those words are just beautiful.
The courts are a major reason that I won’t be sitting this election out. McCain may not give us exactly what we want, but the Obamanation will certainly give us another Ginsburg.
The courts are a major reason that I won’t be sitting this election out. McCain may not give us exactly what we want, but the Obamanation will certainly give us another Ginsburg.
“In so doing, it raises for inspection this notion of “international law.” Global governance activists insist that a body of universal law exists to which nations and their citizens are legally bound to conform. They believe there is a judicial hierarchy in which our Constitution can be trumped by the UN Charter and the Supreme Court overruled by foreigners.”
Jorge El Segundo el al, the globalists in the White House and Congress, subscribe to this tripe.
Thank God America and not the White House won this one.
I hope Mr. Medellin and his fellow monsters meet what is as close to their just fate in Texas as possible. They should be hanged - right in the middle of Crawford, Texas.
Good for the (six members of the) court! Fifty years ago, of course, no president would have ordered the review, and no one would have considered granting Europe, or any other country, the right to overturn our legal decisions.
That just needed repeating.
The judges on that World Court might learn something if they read the document that begins, "When in the course of human events . . . ."
THANK YOU Chief Justice John Roberts!
Now would you PLEASE stay off those damn ladders? We need you to stay around a while!
You mean the intent? Chief Justice Roberts is such a maroon; a perfect opportunity to make law from the bench and he blows it by an obscure concept know as original intent.
George Bush - the Disaster that keeps on giving. Thank God he's gone next January.
You’re assuming scholarship when we’re not even sure of literacy.
This ruling makes me really want to get out there and kick some Obama/Hillary/Democrat voters’ butts, or crack them on the sides of their heads with a 2” x 4” to try to get it across what will happen if their Candidate wins the WH with seats for SCOTUS coming available. Useless isn’t it.
I s’pose the best bet would be to remind those of the Conservative base the importance of voting for McPain if for only the reason of the possibility he would select Constitutionalists to replace those leaving the SCOTUS.
No guarantees with this guy are there?
Very true. The question is. . .don't we want our citizens to have access to the U.S. consultate if they are arrested in a foreign country? If the answer is no, then there is no problem. If the answer is yes, then this decision is an issue.
I assume George Bush would want U.S. citizens to have access to the U.S. consulate if they are ever arrested in a foreign country. Therefore, he would expect the U.S. to abide by the same 'international law' he would expect other countries to abide by.
well, in the future let them notify the Mexican consulate...
then hang em.
It seems the 3 justices who decided that they are inferior to international courts should just resign as their incompetence and dnagerous tendencies have been displayed. I wonder who they are???
The usual suspects - Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg.
You gonna VOTE twice, too? /sarc :)
“McCain may not give us exactly what we want, but the Obamanation will certainly give us another Ginsburg.”
In Medellin v. Texas, Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.
Senator McCain voted to confirm both Breyer and Ginsburg. I don’t know about Souter, but Senator McCain is said to have opposed Alito as “too conservative”.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59979
“McCain may not give us exactly what we want, but the Obamanation will certainly give us another Ginsburg.”
In Medellin v. Texas, Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg.
Senator McCain voted to confirm both Breyer and Ginsburg. I don’t know about Souter, but Senator McCain is said to have opposed Alito as “too conservative”.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59979
I’m not too worried about it, treaty or no treaty. Any nation that denies a US citizen access to a US consulate will no longer be visited by US citizens. It would be the end of their tourism industry and business contacts, and they know it.
The good news is that 6 justices of our Supreme Court rejected this “one world” crap.
The bad news is that 3 morons are stupid enough to buy into it...and are justices of the United States Supreme Court appointed for life.
Would love to read what they said, just for the bizzaro factor.
I also read that McCain is suggesting a league of DEMOCRATIC nations. I think it was Krauthammer who said that this is actually brilliant because it would be a way to nullify the importance of the UN. Most Americans hate the UN and want us out; it’s become as anti-American as any enemy country. By setting up democratic nations who would work together, the UN would (one would hope) lose some of its leverage.
He did so because he was under diplomatic and media pressure for mishaps at Abu Ghraib, false accusations about Guantanamo Bay, and for hurting the delicate feelings of our European allies. It was a crass political decision to put the interests of global elites and their glee club in the State Department over those of justice.
Wow!
There, in a nutshell, is the main reason the Bush Administration has turned into such an abominable failure. Dubya's cowardice in dealing with the State Department (eg., by effectively keeping the place "out of the loop" on anything important and unloading at least some of the communists) and taking the hand-wringing liberal position of giving a rat's behind what a loud handful of socialist elitists in Old Europe think, were inexcusable blunders.
What a colossal shame when you think of what could have been accomplished over the past seven-plus years....
Given how many on the Supreme court are 80+, a Democrat could appoint SEVERAL Ginsbugs.
Perish the thought.
The problem with any “league” of nations, democratic or otherwise, is they do not operate under the same intent and priciples as the US. Unless these so-called democratic nations adopt our Constitution, they are nothing more than a sham and will always side with one-world thinkers.
Even our closest ally has a king/queen (albeit w/o too much kingly might), and no jury of peers nor a bill of rights etc, remember, they are “subjects”.
We are destined to stand alone, unless another people create a government of the people, for the people and by the people.
Golly, I guess Zimbabwe, Russia and even China are “one of us”, as they are by defintion a “democracy”. Yeah, right, Senator McCain.
We need a TR, we already have the big sticks (military and economic).
The above is my personal opinion, of course, you may agree and that is fine.
MOLON LABE
Sad of Bush, that he would concede our national sovereignty as a matter of world opinion.
Better than bikes.
The answer is: I really don't give a damn. Any U.S. citizen who travels in a foreign country is putting himself/herself at the mercy of whatever legal process (or lack thereof) prevails in that country.
I'm not sure you can find another example of this kind of unusual formal/legal arrangement anywhere else in the world.
Ironically, a place like Iraq would probably be a good "test case" to apply the same principles as our founding principles -- if only they could get their collective heads out of their @sses over there.
This opinion showcases the utmost importance the upcoming election plays as to the issue of the federal courts.
Isn't that exactly what happened? The supreme court on behalf of the United States (re)considered the conviction and sentence. The "World Court" and a small number of losers are just whining about the decision.
Very good analogy.
Then for you, this isn't an issue. But I suspect there are some on this thread who are not as consistent.
So you would have no problem with other countries violating the Vienna convention when it comes to how they treat our citizens. I would be willing to bet there are others on the thread who are not as consistent.
How do they know that? Is that something you are told when you apply for a passport or visa? (I've never been out of the country, except to Canada, so I've never had the experience.)
It has been pushed by the popular media.
Even the so called Miranda Rights are known-—
ok but just for culture clash fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNKtH8Fk0eQ
“giadar” is just slang for donkey.
“Mitso” is a persons name.
Yia yia is greek for grandmother.
Uh, try Switzerland, with its Cantons.
I sorta wish we were allowed to do immigration the way the Swiss do it...
Vacated!
Make law from the bench? Where in the Constitution do you find that? It’s not there. The job of making laws was given to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.
Before we get too exuberant please refresh your memory on the Kelo decision.
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.