Sunday, August 03, 2008
Hooray for Texas - Law Prevails
"The law is clear: Texas is bound not by the World Court, but by the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed this matter and determined that this convicted murderer's execution shall proceed," said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas Attorney General's Office.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug03/0,4670,TexasExecution,00.html
The U.S. Embassy in Mexico City has warned of "possible protests."
The Medellin case to which reference was made came about as a result of the International Justice Court's decision in The Hague which held in the Avena decision that
"based on violations of the Vienna Convention, 51 named
Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration
of their state-court convictions and sentences in
the United States. This was so regardless of any forfeiture
of the right to raise Vienna Convention claims because of a
failure to comply with generally applicable state rules
governing challenges to criminal convictions."
Medellin, who is named in the Avena decision, brought a petition for a writ of habeus corpus claiming that prior to giving his written confession to brutal rape and murder, he was not notified of his right under the Vienna Convention to contact the Mexican Consulate. The Texas court dismissed his petition as untimely for his failure to raise the issue at trial or on direct appeal. Pres. Bush had issued a memorandum directing state courts to comply with Avena. Texas declined to comply. Two narrow questions were presented to the USSC:
"First, is the ICJ’s judgment in Avena directly enforceable
as domestic law in a state court in the United States?
Second, does the President’s Memorandum independently
require the States to provide review and reconsideration of
the claims of the 51 Mexican nationals named in Avena
without regard to state procedural default rules? "
The USSC concluded that "neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum
constitutes directly enforceable federal law that
pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive
habeas petitions."
Here are some of the elements of the Court's reasoning:
"In sum, while treaties "may comprise international
commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless
Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the
treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’
and is ratified on these terms."
"[T]he ICJ’s judgment in
Avena does not automatically constitute federal law judicially
enforceable in United States courts."
"The pertinent international agreements...
not provide for implementation of ICJ judgments through
direct enforcement in domestic courts, and 'where a treaty
does not provide a particular remedy, either expressly or
implicitly, it is not for the federal courts to impose one on
the States through lawmaking of their own.'"
"Our Framers established a careful set of procedures that
must be followed before federal law can be created under
the Constitution—vesting that decision in the political
branches, subject to checks and balances. U. S. Const.,
Art. I, §7. They also recognized that treaties could create
federal law, but again through the political branches, with
the President making the treaty and the Senate approving
it. Art. II, §2. The dissent’s understanding of the treaty
route, depending on an ad hoc judgment of the judiciary
without looking to the treaty language—the very language
negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate—
cannot readily be ascribed to those same Framers."
"Medellín’s interpretation would allow ICJ judgments to override
otherwise binding state law; there is nothing in his logic
that would exempt contrary federal law from the same
fate. See, e.g., Cook v. United States, 288 U. S. 102, 119
(1933) (later-in-time self-executing treaty supersedes a
federal statue if there is a conflict). And there is nothing
to prevent the ICJ from ordering state courts to annul
criminal convictions and sentences, for any reason deemed
sufficient by the ICJ. Indeed, that is precisely the relief
Mexico requested."
As for the President's Memorandum the Court said:
"The President has an array of political
and diplomatic means available to enforce international
obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-selfexecuting
treaty into a self-executing one is not among
them. The responsibility for transforming an international
obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty
into domestic law falls to Congress."
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug03/0,4670,TexasExecution,00.html
The U.S. Embassy in Mexico City has warned of "possible protests."
The Medellin case to which reference was made came about as a result of the International Justice Court's decision in The Hague which held in the Avena decision that
"based on violations of the Vienna Convention, 51 named
Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration
of their state-court convictions and sentences in
the United States. This was so regardless of any forfeiture
of the right to raise Vienna Convention claims because of a
failure to comply with generally applicable state rules
governing challenges to criminal convictions."
Medellin, who is named in the Avena decision, brought a petition for a writ of habeus corpus claiming that prior to giving his written confession to brutal rape and murder, he was not notified of his right under the Vienna Convention to contact the Mexican Consulate. The Texas court dismissed his petition as untimely for his failure to raise the issue at trial or on direct appeal. Pres. Bush had issued a memorandum directing state courts to comply with Avena. Texas declined to comply. Two narrow questions were presented to the USSC:
"First, is the ICJ’s judgment in Avena directly enforceable
as domestic law in a state court in the United States?
Second, does the President’s Memorandum independently
require the States to provide review and reconsideration of
the claims of the 51 Mexican nationals named in Avena
without regard to state procedural default rules? "
The USSC concluded that "neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum
constitutes directly enforceable federal law that
pre-empts state limitations on the filing of successive
habeas petitions."
Here are some of the elements of the Court's reasoning:
"In sum, while treaties "may comprise international
commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless
Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the
treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’
and is ratified on these terms."
"[T]he ICJ’s judgment in
Avena does not automatically constitute federal law judicially
enforceable in United States courts."
"The pertinent international agreements...
not provide for implementation of ICJ judgments through
direct enforcement in domestic courts, and 'where a treaty
does not provide a particular remedy, either expressly or
implicitly, it is not for the federal courts to impose one on
the States through lawmaking of their own.'"
"Our Framers established a careful set of procedures that
must be followed before federal law can be created under
the Constitution—vesting that decision in the political
branches, subject to checks and balances. U. S. Const.,
Art. I, §7. They also recognized that treaties could create
federal law, but again through the political branches, with
the President making the treaty and the Senate approving
it. Art. II, §2. The dissent’s understanding of the treaty
route, depending on an ad hoc judgment of the judiciary
without looking to the treaty language—the very language
negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate—
cannot readily be ascribed to those same Framers."
"Medellín’s interpretation would allow ICJ judgments to override
otherwise binding state law; there is nothing in his logic
that would exempt contrary federal law from the same
fate. See, e.g., Cook v. United States, 288 U. S. 102, 119
(1933) (later-in-time self-executing treaty supersedes a
federal statue if there is a conflict). And there is nothing
to prevent the ICJ from ordering state courts to annul
criminal convictions and sentences, for any reason deemed
sufficient by the ICJ. Indeed, that is precisely the relief
Mexico requested."
As for the President's Memorandum the Court said:
"The President has an array of political
and diplomatic means available to enforce international
obligations, but unilaterally converting a non-selfexecuting
treaty into a self-executing one is not among
them. The responsibility for transforming an international
obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty
into domestic law falls to Congress."
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 9:22 PM 
