March 27, 2008
President Bush, showing the internationalist tendencies many have always suspected he harbored and a soft spot for Mexican criminals for which he is infamous, has had his orders to a Texas court to reopen a capital rape and murder case overturned.
From the AP article by Mark Sherman:
In a case that mixes presidential power, international relations and the death penalty, the court sided with Texas and rebuked Bush by a 6-3 vote.
The president was in the unusual position of siding with death row prisoner Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen whom police prevented from consulting with Mexican diplomats, as provided by international treaty.
An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of (Jose Ernesto) Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country's consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.
Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court's rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president's declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.
Medellin was convicted of raping and murdering Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16 of Houston in 1993, but the World Court ruled American justice out-of-order because, when reading him his rights, the police failed to give him the added right to consultation with his Consularate. In essence, since Medellin is a foreign citizen he was entitled to extra rights, according to the United Nations World Court.
Mr. Bush, complying with the ``Court`` ruling, ordered a new hearing for Medellin over Texas objections, and the U.S. Supreme Court spanked the DOJ order.
Again from the article:
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, disagreed. Roberts said the international court decision cannot be forced upon the states.
The president may not ''establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law,'' Roberts said. Neither does the treaty, by itself, require individual states to take action, he said.
Of course, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg dissented, although Stevens agreed but asked for a voluntary state reopening of the case to comply with our ``obligations`` to the U.N.
Mr. Medellin`s case went through the usual appeals process with no success (for him). It wasn`t until Mexico sued in the World Court in 2003 on behalf of Medellin and 50 other Mexican citizens on death row that there was any doubt as to the final disposition of the matter.
I have a question; if Mexico can sue the U.S. for failing to inform one man that he has the extra-constitutional right to consult with his country of origin (despite being clearly guilty) why do we not have the right to sue Mexico for illegally invading our sovereignty? We have a great many documented examples of flagrant violations of our territory by Mexico. Would the World Court be so generous in that instance? Somehow I seriously doubt it.
This is internationalism run amok. The state of Texas has final say-not some hodgepodge anti-American body in the Hague. The World Court rarely (if ever) rules in the U.S. favor and is, like the rest of that corrupt institution (the U.N.), merely another club with which to beat America. It`s time we withdraw from the whole rotten mess.
President Bush shows yet again that he, and many of our monied classes in general, believes in a coming world government. I`ve argued this for some time; there is more kinship between the international business class than between fellow citizens of countries, and Mr. Bush, by virtue of his wealth and oil connections, feels more at home among Saudi princes and European beaurocrats than his own people, and is quite happy to empower an institution with global reach. This also suggests yet again a planned North American Union; Bush wants Mexico to be able to force changes in our laws.
America has traditionally had good government, freedom (both political and economic), and plurality-things alien to Mexico and especially the corrupt Europe. Experience should have taught us that the good rarely uplift the bad, but, rather, the bad generally degrade the good in this world. Man is easily corrupted while raised up with terrific effort. These international institutions will do nothing but kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Instead of the best of America becoming part of a larger order, the failings of the larger order will become part of America. Certainly, the World War Two coalition promoted profound changes in America after the fall of the Axis, and America would be unrecognizable in many ways to a man from 1908, say. While some aspects of America-notably American pop culture-was absorbed by the Europeans, America adopted many of the economic and social views held by the left-leaning Continentals. Our leftward drift would never have happened had it not been for our participation in post-war alliances and organizations. We may have won the war physically, but the leftism of Europe ultimately conquered America. We are all socialists now to some degree.
Aunschluss with Mexico will give us the worst of both worlds, yet President Bush has been dilligently working toward the creation of a North American Union. This entity is not a goal in and of itself alone, but would be preparation for the creation of a still larger entity under the auspices of the United Nations. Africa has begun working towards an African Union, for example, and that should not go unnoticed. There are many throughout the world who believe we would be better off with one government calling the shots. Such amalgamation would do nothing but bring despotism and plague, a pox upon our people. The larger the entity, the greater likelihood of abuse. A world government may start weak, but it would eventually become very, very strong.
We should reject all of this. We have the greatest country in human history, and have no reason to surrender aspects of our sovereignty to international bodies. The Supreme Court did the right thing here.
Unfortunately, we have a choice of three internationalists for president in the next election, so I suspect we should get used to the idea.
32 queries taking 0.0055 seconds, 132 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.