AP: Court: Bush can't help foreign killer

[Eugene]

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 · Last updated 8:16 p.m. PT

Court: Bush can't help foreign killer

By MICHAEL GRACZYK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

HOUSTON -- A state appeals court chastised President Bush on Wednesday for
intervening in the case of a condemned killer born in Mexico, one of several
dozen cases in which Bush ordered new hearings amid international complaints.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the argument from Jose Ernesto
Medellin that he was denied legal help he should have received under international
treaties.

-snip-

"We hold that the President has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding
into the independent powers of the judiciary," the court said in a 64-page ruling.

-snip-

At issue overall was how much weight U.S. courts should give to decisions of the
International Court of Justice in The Hague, which ruled the convictions of Medellin
and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention. The pact
requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the
United States.

-snip-

Full article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Execution_Mexican_National.html

[AIJ Alom]

1. Nothing new for the "can-do" president.

aka dictator in chief. I'm glad the Texas court had the good sense to slap him down.

[fooj]

2. He's "the decider" afterall.

[LynnTheDem]

3. Dunno 'bout that; bush is killing a lot of foreigners the past few years.

150,000 to 655,000 Iraqis alone.

[MADem]

4. "We hold that the President has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding

"into the independent powers of the judiciary," ....

Well, really, what else is new? Isn't that his modus operandi?

[Fridays Child]

5. I'm confused here. Sitting in the White House, he took it upon...

...himself to issue orders to the Texas court system? What particular power was he trying to assert? Was this February 2005 order widely reported? I don't remember ever hearing a single thing about it.

According to the article, the court's rejection of Bush has the effect of denying the defendant a review of his claim that he has certain rihgts under international treaties. Was that Bush's intention, all along? I don't get it.

[Igel]

8. The Texas legal system ignored the provisions of a

treaty ratified by Congress which say that upon arrest a foreign national's embassy/consulate must be advised (IIRC, if the foreign national so requests). Then the embassy can provide legal counsel, if it wants. The question is, does Congress have the authority to impose international treaties on police and courts set up under the state's Constitution? If the embassy/consulate isn't consulted, or if the arrestee isn't advised of his treaty-granted right to mandate that his embassy be advised, does that invalidate the verdict?

The problem is that state police and state courts are authorized by the US Constitution's granting of such authority to the states; the treaty is the law of the land, up there with other acts of Congress. (A treaty seems to be taken to override the Constitution, which is strange from a rules of order persective: negotiate a treaty with another country, have it pass by a simple majority, and short-circuit the 2/3 majority in Congress needed to allow the states to come up with a 3/4 majority for approving a Constitutional amendment. Typically there's no way for a simple majority to make a decision that would normally need a greater majority.)

Anyway, the Texas courts have said that the 1963 treaty doesn't matter at the state level: if it's ignored, well, it's ignored, and state law doesn't give a damn.

*, however, under advice of counsel, said otherwise. He order the state to comply with the treaty. He order new hearings for the 50+ folk that should have been covered by the treaty. This decision tells * to back out: The federal government has no business unilaterally imposing a treaty on it.

I thought this would be the verdict, from a strictly legal-argument kind of perspective. At the same time, if this is taken to SCOTUS (as I think it should) it'll be an interesting spectacle. If this court's verdict is upheld, it'll have implications for other treaties. If it's overriden, it'll have implications for state's rights as negotiated with other countries by the president and ratified by Congress.

[Virginian]

6. Why does Bush hate Americans

He wants new trials for the Mexicans, but when he was Governor, he almost seemed joyful when he got to reject requests for pardons.

[rodeodance]

7. But in this case Bush WH is supporting Hague decision.

.....At issue overall was how much weight U.S. courts should give to decisions of the
International Court of Justice in The Hague, which ruled the convictions of Medellin
and 50 other Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention. The pact
requires consular access for Americans detained abroad and foreigners arrested in the
United States.