Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: SCOTUS trumps world court

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA

    Post imported post

    There is a frequently circulated rumor thatthe ratification of the UN arms treaty trumps other constitutional provisions. This decision seems to cast doubt on that prospect. Roberts pointed out that to recognize the world court would subject us to an unassailable set of laws...

    Interesting and worth a read.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt

    Post imported post

    Very interesting indeed! Especially this part:
    Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had misread the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which says properly ratified treaties "shall be the supreme law of the land" and that the treaties at issue did not need to be implemented by congressional legislation. "As a result, the nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the contrary," Breyer wrote. He was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter.
    Roberts said to accept Medellin's argument would make World Court decisions not only binding domestic law but also "unassailable."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Newport News, Virginia, USA

    Post imported post

    Hooray for the Supreme Court. How asinine can you get. A Federal Executive ordering a sovereign State to have a do-over trial.

    World Court is really not justice, but a slow emasculation of sovereignty.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Southeast, Missouri, USA

    Post imported post

    This really is a fundamental question of "rights". When someone is arrested in this country, they are required to be notified of their Miranda rights. I find it appalling that countries which do not protect even the most fundamental of human rights consistently condemn the US for following our own constitution and laws.

    Stevens agreed that Texas could not be forced to reconsider the case but urged it to do so nonetheless, especially because its failure to advise Medell¿n of his rights "ensnared the United States in the current controversy."
    To argue as Stevens states that an illegal immigrant in this country has some sort of supra rights to other notifications is as impractical as it is untenable. How would that be implemented? Would it give new language to Miranda where LEO would have to add, "and if you are a foreign national you have the right to contact your consulate?" Or would LEOs have to determine absolutely whether or not the individual is a foreign national before mirandizing the suspect? And once such a determination is made can't we just deport them instead of paying to put them in jail or is that some other sort of infringement? Would we have to perform such an investigation on every detained person so LEO isn't accused of discrimination when determining who's status to verify? Such a contention fails in both the intellectual and real worlds.

    The Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry said it regretted the court's decision and its lawyers are reviewing the implications for "other Mexican nationals facing death sentences, in order to determine immediate legal actions to preserve their rights."
    Here's a cluepon, tell your citizens to quit killing people in foreign countries. If you really don't like it or really think it is evil, issue an advisory to your citizens in the US to leave the country as it is not safe for them. The US has done that in numerous situations around the world. I'm sure many US citizens would be glad to help you get the word out.

    This does allay some concerns about the UN's attempts to disarm the US population. Would SCOTUS make a similar ruling on any such UN attempt or World Court attempt?
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts