Comments on: New test of president’s powers: Medellin case is back http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Jacques McKenzie http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-10870 Jacques McKenzie Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:49:29 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/#comment-10870 Yes, it says "<i>in accordance with general principles of comity</i> in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision." That sounds like an <i>ought</i> to me. Yes, it says “in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.” That sounds like an ought to me.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-10869 Kent Scheidegger Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:01:56 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/#comment-10869 Read it yourself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050228-18.html Read it yourself:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050228-18.html

]]> By: Jacques McKenzie http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-10868 Jacques McKenzie Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:17:09 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/#comment-10868 You mean "<i>should</i> comply," right? You mean “should comply,” right?

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/comment-page-1/#comment-10867 Kent Scheidegger Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:04:20 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/new-test-of-presidents-powers-medellin-case-is-back/#comment-10867 "The core issue in this controversy is whether states have an obligation to allow foreign nationals who are arrested and prosecuted within those states a chance to consult with a consular officer from their home country (under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)." Actually, the obligation to notify the arrestee of his right to have the consulate notified is uncontested in this case. The core issue is the effect of the President's determination that the United States would comply with the ICJ's <i>Avena</i> decision in the particular cases involved there (of which this is one) by having the state courts set aside procedural default rules that the Supreme Court upheld for all other cases last term in <i>Bustillo</i>, the companion case to <i>Sanchez-Llamas</i>. “The core issue in this controversy is whether states have an obligation to allow foreign nationals who are arrested and prosecuted within those states a chance to consult with a consular officer from their home country (under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations).”

Actually, the obligation to notify the arrestee of his right to have the consulate notified is uncontested in this case.

The core issue is the effect of the President’s determination that the United States would comply with the ICJ’s Avena decision in the particular cases involved there (of which this is one) by having the state courts set aside procedural default rules that the Supreme Court upheld for all other cases last term in Bustillo, the companion case to Sanchez-Llamas.

]]>