Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Bush Overruled in Death Penalty Dispute
Supreme Court Says Bush Overstepped Authority by Intervening in Mexican National's Case
By ARIANE de VOGUE
March 25, 2008—
In a victory for the state of Texas, the Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that President George W. Bush cannot force the state to reconsider a death penalty case, even if the conviction violated an international court's ruling.
Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 for raping and killing two teenage girls in Houston.
However, the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands ruled that his conviction was in violation of international treaties, which ordered that the home country of any defendant had to be notified upon the arrest of a foreign national.
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention requires authorities to notify "without delay" a detained foreign national of his right to request assistance from the consul of his own state. At the time of Medellin's arrest, the United States was a signatory to the treaty, but Mexico was never notified of his arrest.
Medellin, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States most of his life, claimed that had he known that he could inform Mexican consular officers of his detention they could have potentially assisted him by providing funding for experts or investigators or ensuring that he was represented by a competent defense counsel. Currently, there are 50 other Mexican nationals on death row in America.
Taking the side of Medellin, Bush issued a statement admitting that the United States had breached the applicable article of the Vienna Convention, and determined that state courts had to abide by the treaty. This meant they had to then review and reconsider the sentences and convictions of the death row inmates.
Bush claimed that his determination to have the states reconsider the cases came from his "authorized power to effectuate" treaty obligations.
The Bush administration ordered the Texas state court to reopen Medellin's case in order to comply with the treaty. Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not make such an order. The president is allowed to "execute" the laws "not make them," the court concluded.
Texas had argued that the president's actions in the case were intrusive on the sovereignty of the states. Greg Abbott, attorney general of Texas, argued that Texas could not be forced to reopen the cases because "the presidential memorandum transgresses the authority of Congress, of the judiciary and of the states."
Abbott used strong language to outline Medellin's crimes, which include participating in the gang rape and strangulation of two young teenage girls, Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena.
"Medellin was tried and convicted of murder during the course of a sexual assault," Abbott wrote. "A jury unanimously recommended a death sentence."
Texas had asked the high court to consider the presidential memorandum to be a "request," not a "command."
Government lawyers wrote in legal papers supporting Medellin that the president "has recognized authority to resolve disputes with foreign nations over individual claims, and to establish binding rules of decision that preempt contrary state law."
The government lawyers said that the "compelling national interests served by the president's determination outweigh the relatively modest intrusion on state interests."
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Bush did not have that power over the states.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Paul Stevens, who filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.
--------- How things twist! Bush goes for Mexico and the Liberal judges support him and his buddies don't support authoritarian Presidential power.
Very confused here
Supreme Court Says Bush Overstepped Authority by Intervening in Mexican National's Case
By ARIANE de VOGUE
March 25, 2008—
In a victory for the state of Texas, the Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that President George W. Bush cannot force the state to reconsider a death penalty case, even if the conviction violated an international court's ruling.
Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 for raping and killing two teenage girls in Houston.
However, the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands ruled that his conviction was in violation of international treaties, which ordered that the home country of any defendant had to be notified upon the arrest of a foreign national.
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention requires authorities to notify "without delay" a detained foreign national of his right to request assistance from the consul of his own state. At the time of Medellin's arrest, the United States was a signatory to the treaty, but Mexico was never notified of his arrest.
Medellin, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States most of his life, claimed that had he known that he could inform Mexican consular officers of his detention they could have potentially assisted him by providing funding for experts or investigators or ensuring that he was represented by a competent defense counsel. Currently, there are 50 other Mexican nationals on death row in America.
Taking the side of Medellin, Bush issued a statement admitting that the United States had breached the applicable article of the Vienna Convention, and determined that state courts had to abide by the treaty. This meant they had to then review and reconsider the sentences and convictions of the death row inmates.
Bush claimed that his determination to have the states reconsider the cases came from his "authorized power to effectuate" treaty obligations.
The Bush administration ordered the Texas state court to reopen Medellin's case in order to comply with the treaty. Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not make such an order. The president is allowed to "execute" the laws "not make them," the court concluded.
Texas had argued that the president's actions in the case were intrusive on the sovereignty of the states. Greg Abbott, attorney general of Texas, argued that Texas could not be forced to reopen the cases because "the presidential memorandum transgresses the authority of Congress, of the judiciary and of the states."
Abbott used strong language to outline Medellin's crimes, which include participating in the gang rape and strangulation of two young teenage girls, Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena.
"Medellin was tried and convicted of murder during the course of a sexual assault," Abbott wrote. "A jury unanimously recommended a death sentence."
Texas had asked the high court to consider the presidential memorandum to be a "request," not a "command."
Government lawyers wrote in legal papers supporting Medellin that the president "has recognized authority to resolve disputes with foreign nations over individual claims, and to establish binding rules of decision that preempt contrary state law."
The government lawyers said that the "compelling national interests served by the president's determination outweigh the relatively modest intrusion on state interests."
The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Bush did not have that power over the states.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion and was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Paul Stevens, who filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.
--------- How things twist! Bush goes for Mexico and the Liberal judges support him and his buddies don't support authoritarian Presidential power.
Very confused here
