SCOTUS trumps world court

imported post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032501185.html?hpid=moreheadlines



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.

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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."

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

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?