Posted on 07/31/2008 6:59:34 PM PDT by instantgratification
“Congress may have intervened..’
On what legal basis could Congress have intervened? When the Federal Government tried to order the State of Texas to review the case the US Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch of the Federal Government had no jurisdiction in the matter. They ruled it was a matter for the Texas courts, legislature to handle. Additionally, the Governor does not have the authority to commute his sentance, Texas has a state board of pardons that has that authority.
I believe the US consulate does say if you commit a crime in a foreign country, you will face that jurisdiction’s laws. But they can help with access to lawyers, etc.
I think the US concern is about innocent people who get caught in situationa abroad.
As an example, there was a Canadian woman, Brenda Martin, who worked as a cook for a Canadian criminal (pyramid scammer) in Mexico. She was held in jail for 2 or 3 years before she was finally released, only after diplomatic intervention (Technically, she was convicted and sent to serve her sentence in Canada. Even the scammer, who was sentenced in the US (where most of his victims were) said she had nothing to do with his scheme, and he’d fired her before he was arrested. But, in Mexico, you’re innocent until proven guilty.
Call me old fashioned, but an “error” is using drugs, or speeding. An error is not gang raping 2 young girls (14 and 16), then strangling them.
That just proves he has no conscience.
I believe Justice Stevens stated that Texas could not be compelled to follow the World Court decision, but that they should review it (to fulfill treaty obligations).
The World Court didn’t stated Medellin could not be executed, only that his trial should be reviewed to ensure it was “fair”. I think the appeals process basically covered that.
Treaties take precedence over state rights.
Here is a legal analysis -
http://www.legalweekblogs.com/legalvillage/2008/03/medellin_case_shows_theres_no.html
how absolutely disgusting... on top of that, i am sick of society thinking of 18-30 year olds as kids... this guy was a man at the time of the murders...
Not being a lawyer I can’t be sure, but if it is a legal matter then its for the Courts to intervene, not Congress. And the Supreme Court has already struck down the attempt by the Executive Branch to intervene. So what’s left?
Because it is a treaty matter (Vienna Convention), Congress can intervene.
I’m not sure what Congress can legally do, pass a law saying that Texas cannot execute this man? Again, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter and told President Bush that the Federal government cannot interfere with how Texas enforces its own laws.
If Congress enacted a statute which implemented the treaty, then it would supersede the Texas courts. That is what the SCOTUS found in its judgment on this case. The fact there currently is no such statute is why Texas did not have to adhere to the World Court ruling.
Sounds like Federalism to me.
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.