Comments on: Medellin Discussion Board: The Ball is In Congress’s Court

By: Daniel J. Artz

Daniel J. Artz — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:13:59 +0000

Daniel Thomas — just why is it that you equate Paul’s no-nothing isolationism with “modern Republicanism”? And just what make’s you believe that “modern Republicanism” is the equivalent of hating the constitution and hating democracy? If you are the essential Democrat, then it’s just as I suspected, it’s really not worthwhile to try talk to Democrats, because they refuse to listen.

By: Daniel Thomas

Daniel Thomas — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:15:20 +0000

Ken. Your commentary is silly.

US Congress: White is White
SCOTUS: White is White? We don’t understand that. You need to say white is white if you mean that!
US Congress: Ok. white is white.
SCOTUS: white is white? We don’t understand that. You need to say White is White if you mean that!

Really, how long does this silly game have to go on. There is such a thing as “good will” and if SCOTUS wants to it can interpret anything to mean the opposite of what it says. Congress can pass another law and you can be sure that will be litigated and the Court will find some other word besides “undertake” to twist the meaning of in order to arrive at their predetermined conclusion .

By: Daniel Thomas

Daniel Thomas — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:08:10 +0000

Paul. It is good to see modern Republicanism in action. You hate the constitution, you hate democracy, you hate anything that does not conform to your own will. Don’t you think it would be better to work harder to be one of these judges than to attack them like you do? You might get further.

By: Hector Vindiola

Hector Vindiola — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:57:46 +0000

My comment to Paul Milligan’s shrug-off of the international treaties, in this case, the Vienna Convention and the ICJ, is, will you also say “screw them” when U.S. citizens are arrested overseas and not provided with their right to seek their consular authorities and held without proper counsel? This is a terrible precedent for a total disregard of the U.S.’s commitment to international law.

By: Adam Caudle

Adam Caudle — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:26:00 +0000

Steve – The Senate quite often puts reservations to treaties that we sign. For example, virtually every human rights treaty ratified by the U.S. has a reservation stating it’s not self-executing and requires legislation to enact. Some treaty provisions are self-executing for a variety of reasons, such as pre-existing constitutional rights, but unless a treaty states that it’s self-executing, most treaties need legislation to give it any force domestically.

By: Paul Milligan

Paul Milligan — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:08:07 +0000

Screw the ICJ. Very simple. No extra-territorial panel of ‘judges’ appointed by non-Americans has DOODLY SQUAT to say about our laws.

Screw ‘em..

By: Ryan Baldwin

Ryan Baldwin — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:44:56 +0000

I agree that, were Congress to act here, it would be proper for the state courts to hear this issue. However, I think your justification for this point is extraordinarily weak. Do you really intend to argue that it is appropriate to deprive a court of jurisdiction over a case solely because many people (like you, apparently) disagree with some of its rulings?

If so, I would point out that this would also make the Texas courts, which are every bit as “notorious” (particularly with respect to death penalty cases) as the 9th Circuit, ineligible to hear these cases.

By: Daniel J. Artz

Daniel J. Artz — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:07:54 +0000

While I agree that the ball is in Congress’ court, I disagree that any legislation “should be limited to the 50 or so cases at issue in Avena and not yet otherwise resolved.” Face it, the problem in Avena would never have arisen if various State & local police & prosecutors weren’t either ignorant of their Notice obligations under the Vienna Convention, or willing to ignore those obligations. And Texas was not the only state involved, just the only one to be so obstinate in its opposition to any post-appeal review. Oklahoma Courts decided that, in the interest of better international relations, it was better served by granting the review ordered by the ICJ, and Oklahoma’s governor, in a nod to better international relations, commuted a death sentence imposed upon one of the Aveno complainants to life without parole. In order to avoid these situations in the future (I know, the President has now opted out of the Protocol which granted the ICJ jurisdiction over Vienna Convention claims, so we will never again have an ICJ judgment that we violated the Vienna Convention, but that doesn’t mean that continued violations in the future will not cause diplomatic riffs, especially with Mexico which so strongly opposes the death penalty), Congress ought to take one further step, and explicitly require all state and local police, prosecutors, and arraignment judges to give a short but explicit notice to all foreign nationals that, if they are citizens of any country which is a party to the Vienna Convention, they have a right to have the Consul of their home country notified of their arrest, and they have the right to contact that Consul for assistance in their defense. If the arrestee then divulges his nation of origin and requests the notice, or requests to contact his Consul, make the prosecutor responsible for: (a) giving the suspect access to a phone and the number of his nearest consular office; and (b) sending written notice of the arrest, with the name of the suspect and the date and charges of the arrest, to that consular office (the notice can be by fax or email, if available, otherwise by U.S. Postal Service First Class mail). If we give all signatories to the Vienna Convention the opportunity to provide a central listing of their local Consular Offices, along with a phone number, FAX number, and email, for all notices under the Vienna Convention, then local officials will have no reason not to give the proper notices.

As an American who enjoys traveling abroad, I will feel much more comfortable about the willingness of other countries to abide by the Vienna Convention if I know that ALL of the United States, each state and each local police department, will abide by that Treaty, and the World knows it.

By: Daniel J. Artz

Daniel J. Artz — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:45:04 +0000

While I agree that the ball is in Congress’ court, I disagree that any legislation “

By: steve laudig

steve laudig — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:25:20 +0000

Where is the “self-executing”, “non self-executing” language? “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” I see no mention of a need for legislation. Is there such a thing as a “non self-executing” law made in pursuance of the Constitution? Sorry if it sounds naive but the court has drifted from first principles.