Posted on 07/08/2011 11:23:34 AM PDT by massmike
What do ya bet no one else wants them in THEIR back yard, either! It’s time for them to disband and move on...and move back to the terror-driven countries that most of them come from!
That's all I need to know.
LOL!! I just talked to another TX guardsman and he had a very similar answer to the UN problem. Nobody want them in their country, so we have to deal with that bunch of terrorist idiots. BTW, he did not call them idiots. His word started with an "a".
Yo Army Air Corps—Thanks for your service. Are you a WWII Vet?
I’m USA Ret’d myself. I also have a career soldier son. Been in 19 years and is now a battalion Command Sergeant Major deployed to Afghanistan. He did better in his enlisted track than I did in the officer track. Retired an LTC. Surprised I achieved that rank as I was never a political sort of fellow.
The left cannot outright kill The Constitution and Bill of Rights so its “pretending” it away by pretending it doesn’t exist and/or is irrelevant. The Usurping Marxist Onada and his commie buddies (Pelosi and Reid) took a bid step in that direction when they ran the Kenyan for president. Of course, leftist jurists have been perverting, subverting and ignoring the Constitution for years.
LOL! His word was more correct! I hope our next president will deal with this problem! They can’t be dictating what we do within our borders. That’s not their business!
They would have MY vote...except maybe Ron Paul. Ugh!
An open letter to Mexico:
Dear Mexico,
If you do not wish for us to execute your rapists and murderers please keep them on your side of the Rio Grande.
Sincerely,
Texas
No, I am not. The FR handle is in homage to my relatives who served in the US Army Air Corps (later, US Army Air Force) in WWII. In fact, I have a great uncle who owes the army for his wife - she was an Army nurse.
Excuse me, UN idiot, but America is NOT governed by UN law. You have no idea how resented you are even before you open your mouth or you would keep a MUCH lower profile.
As the one responsible for foreign relations with Mexico and any other country that may be pissed off that we are not meeting our treaty obligations.
"Fix the problem?" Do you think the World Court sticking its nose into our court system is our problem? What the SCOTUS said was that GWB had no authority to tell the state of Texas what to do.
The problem is that notification of consular rights is not law in the United States. SCOTUS ruled GWB had no authority because there is no law implementing the treaty. The fix is a law that implements the treaty, as we have done with most other parts of that treaty. Such a law doesn't let people go by default, it just says cops have to notify a foreigner that he has a right to consular access.
"any other country that may be pissed off that we are not meeting our treaty obligations" does not supersede a President's duty to the Constitution, which does not give him the right to control a state's legal system.
The fix is a law that implements the treaty, as we have done with most other parts of that treaty. Such a law doesn't let people go by default, it just says cops have to notify a foreigner that he has a right to consular access.
You have a point, but what do you propose as a remedy if police don't notify a foreigner immediately when arrested? A new trial? Let federal judges invent a remedy? I hope you understand that congress tinkering with state legal systems is very tricky business. What happens if the defendant contacts the consulate on his own initiative, or with help from someone else? For example ACLU, MALDEF, etc. could intentionally not involve the foreign consulate until the trial is finished, to poison a verdict.
A law which leaves details to rogue federal judges, or to bureaucrats, would be extremely dangerous.
According to Ramesh Ponnuru, The Senate ratified the Vienna Convention with the understanding that it created no individual rights and would not be enforced in state courts. Based on that, a 2011 congress which passed a law that did what the World Court wants would contradict the conditions under which the US senate ratified (with a 2/3 majority of course) the treaty in 1969.
He also has no duty to support state laws. Obama's problem is that he asked again, although he already knew the answer, so it was just political grandstanding.
You have a point, but what do you propose as a remedy if police don't notify a foreigner immediately when arrested? A new trial? Let federal judges invent a remedy?
That would all have to be addressed. I would say if the person doesn't self-identify as a foreign national before or during arraignment, he would lose the ability to use the claim in appeals. If the accused self-identifies and is still not allowed contact, I would say that must be brought up at trial or no appeal would be allowed. This is a common theme in criminal trials ("objection" is often called just to preserve the right to appeal on that point). No grandfathering either -- all people currently in jail were duly convicted under state and federal law with no violation of a LEGAL notification requirement right having occurred, nor necessarily any constitutional right having been violated.
I hope you understand that congress tinkering with state legal systems is very tricky business.
The laws implementing the same treaty prevent state legal systems from imprisoning ambassadors and impounding consulate vehicles. We've survived with such tinkering, and other countries survive with such tinkering when dealing with American diplomats abroad.
According to Ramesh Ponnuru, The Senate ratified the Vienna Convention with the understanding that it created no individual rights and would not be enforced in state courts.
He doesn't supply a source for that claim. I thought this too at first, but then I read the appropriate part of the treaty, and it's quite clear. The United States through treaty agreed to notify all arrested foreign nationals of their right to contact their consulates. We don't do that, and it is a failure on our part. This requirement doesn't contradict any part of the Constitution, so there is no reason not to implement it. Congress has shown it doesn't care when treaty implementation actually does violate the Constitution anyway.
So Bush thought his action might free a convicted murderer, and Obama knew his action would not. That is hardly a point in Bush's favor. I think if Bush's effort had succeeded, it would have been a political liabilty, but it should have been obvious to everyone that the SCOTUS would rule against Bush, plus Bush was already in his second term.
Look, I really hate Obama. I voted for Bush 2 times as governor and 2 times for POTUS. In 2000 I literally went all over the world defending him, from Edinburgh to Macau. But in his second term, he lost me.
I would say if the person doesn't self-identify as a foreign national before or during arraignment, he would lose the ability to use the claim in appeals.
That would be a reasonable approach, but I doubt it would satisfy America's enemies, internal and external. It's not clear to me whether such a law would end the dispute, or move the ball toward more radical legislation.
Advocates of such radical "immigrant friendly" legislation would claim that an individual arrested would not know he was required to declare his nationality without consular help (a chicken-and-egg problem). Plus lawyers could claim that he did declare his nationality but the officials did not speak his language. With John Morton's let-em-go policies, illegals might be confused about what is illegal and what is not, especially after radicals tell them they have a "right" to be here.
I have serous concerns about what Holder and Napolitano would do with such a law.
What is meritorious in your suggestion is that it avoids the preposterous scenario of police being required to determine immigration status, while being forbidden from asking about it. At least, I hope it avoids it -- There are always new tricks.
I wrote: The Senate ratified the Vienna Convention with the understanding that it created no individual rights and would not be enforced in state courts.
You wrote: He doesn't supply a source for that claim.
I have to agree. There may have been an informal majority "feeling" that there are some aspects of the treaty that they felt uncomfortable with, but AFAIK they ratified it without any formal statements of reservations.
Not necessarily. Remember, Bush had no problem as Texas governor sending many men to the death chamber. Bush wanted the execution to wait until the point of consular notification was cleared up. Obama knew his arguments would fail, as they had failed the last time with Bush. Even worse, nobody in the federal government bothered to clear it up in the interim.
But in his second term, he lost me.
My opinion of him went down quite a bit too. I had such high hopes right after Clinton.
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.