Tuesday, October 09, 2007

So, the World Court is going to trump the Supreme Court?

And bush is the first out of the stalls too!
I'm calling treason on these! I guess the Constitution is on life-support, only by the grace of the bureaucrats and this administration is it still around! :spit: But it's lines are starting to be pulled! First amnesty, then SPP/NAU and LOST, now the world court?



Ducky's here said...

Damn, for once President Little Boots actually pays attention to the Constitution and everyone jumps on him.

Treaties have the force of law and in this case the punk was entitled to contact with a consulate. Now, many Americans have also used that guarantee, not for such a disgusting offense but that isn't relevant to the case law.

So, SCOTUS will decide whether or not the scum was entitled to be notified of these rights. I suspect that even if he is upheld the case will just be retried with the same outcome.

The Merry Widow said...

Well the problem is, he didn't even mention that he was a mexican citizen at his first trial. And he was in America for most of his life, so he probably understood the language.
A retrial may be necessary, but to be under the UN grates at me!
Most of these treaty things and conventions were never signed by the US, but were followed anyway. It was just under our jurisdiction, not someone elses.
I see so much of our sovereignty being tossed out that I am a bit touchy of what is left.
The problem with this case is that Mexico screams if we put such scum to death. And encourages the illegals(and even some recent citizens) to protest and raise more havok. That I'm leery of!


Wild Bill said...

I'd be willin to let the POS rot in an American Jail if we can just get the dirtbag back that killed the Dallas College Coed and set her dead body on fire the other day..

U.S. Marshals and Mexican Police captured the killer the other day and now we gotta see if we can get his butt back across the border..

I have a feelin that gettin him back is gonna be conditional on what the Court decides on this one tho..

The Merry Widow said...

It usually is,Wild Bill. If we have the audacity to find a man guilty of a heinous crime, one that deserves the death penalty, I would expect us to carry out the lawful sentence without his native land trying to dictate to us.
Personally, if an American committed the same crime in Mexico, I would not have a problem with them executing him after a proper trial. Unfortunately, Mexico is corrupt, and protects it's citizens from the consequences of their behavior!


Ducky's here said...

Our conviction of this slime is not the issue.

America is signatory to a valid treaty which gives aliens access to a consular official. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not it is required to inform prisoners of this right.

Mexico isn't demanding anything. The case is brought as part of due process and best defense. It is laughable to consider anything here an act of treason but it is worth pointing out that the opponents of due process do show less respect for the Constitution that others.

Warren said...

What's laughable is your mouthing of the "progressive" agitprop line.

The treaty was never intended as a guarantor of individual rights. It gave the right for a representative of the Mexican government to have contact with a Mexican citizen held in jail, nothing more.

If you can show me, where in that treaty where it says that Mexican citizens held for breaking American law are required to be notified that they have that "right", show me or go crawl under a rock.

This is just another attempt from some piece of scum at the ACLU to warp the law.

Ducky's here said...

Warren, are you a Constitutional lawyer? No, you are not. Therefore your interpretation must take a back seat to the SCOTUS decision.

I get a kick out of your talking about agitprop and then bringing up the ACLU which hasn't been heavily involved in this case. Something that can't be said for your play buddy President Little Boots.

Brooke said...

President "Little Boots?"

Really, Ducky, as much as I am peeved at GW right now, that "little boot" just doesn't fit! LOL!

Ducky's here said...

The reference is to Caligula (i.e. Little Boot).

You may substitute The Dauphin, The Little Prince, Chimpy, President FlightDeck, Chucklenuts as you desire.

Warren said...

Dumpy said:
"Warren, are you a Constitutional lawyer? No, you are not. Therefore your interpretation must take a back seat to the SCOTUS decision."

There hasn't been any SCOTUS decision on this case except in your imagination and I doubt there has been a foreign film made about it so you know less than nothing!

I am, however, one up on you; I don't have a comprehension problem.

In 2005 the U.S. withdrew from the part of the Vienna Convention that gives the World Court final say in international disputes.

President Bush has no say in States legal matters outside of his Presidential pardoning powers

The "World Court" is as much of a joke as the UN and you.

Article 36
Communication and contact with nationals
of the sending State
1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending
(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have
access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to
communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State;

(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the
consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or
committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication
addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded
by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without
delay of his rights under this subparagraph;

(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison,
custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation.
They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or
detention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from
taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such

2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be exercised in conformity with the
laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and
regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this
article are intended.

In words for the feeble minded, since he didn't identify himself as a Mexican national and didn't request a consular visit, The arresting authorities were under no obligation to provide him with one.

Gayle said...

I wonder... is Ducky a constitutional lawyer? Screw "due process!"

State's rights. This is about State's Rights! President Bush does not have the right to dictate to Texas regarding what to do with this scumbag, and I predict that Texas will execute him whether Bush likes it or not. To hell with Mexico and the World Court! This scumbag took the lives of two young girls and he doesn't deserve to be allowed to live. I truly empathize with the parents of those girls and actually I think death by injection is to good for him. They should castrate him, then tie him up on railroad tracks and leave him!

The Merry Widow said...

Gayle-How about selling licenses for people to take pot shots at him as he runs naked and shoeless through the cactus?


Almtnman said...

Better yet, stake his butt down to a fire ant bed and cover him with about ten gallons of molasses.

As Gayle mentioned above, this is a state's rights issue, nothing to do with world courts, treaties words from the wise!

Russet Shadows said...

Once again, Ducky is wrong. He's no Constitutional lawyer either, and the Constitution wasn't written in order to be so confusing that only lawyers can understand it. 0 for 2, chump! Besides that, this isn't about the Constitution, but about a law (we are not signatories to the ICC) that was passed which does not confer individual rights on illegals! So you're definitely down on strikes, Ducky. Next batter?

Brooke said...

I know who you are referring to, Ducky.

That's why "little boots" is so out there.

Ducky's here said...

Oh Russet, this is about a TREATY. Now go give the Constitution a cursory read. You will discover the treaty has the force of law.

Now, does that include the requirement that a foreign national must be advised of the right? The national certainly HAS the right by treaty to contact a consulate. If the national is not advised does that constitute a denial of his rights?

That's what SCOTUS has to decide. Simple.

Ducky's here said...

Oh Gayle, this has nothing to do with states rights. Treaties have the force of law.

States are not allowed to decide whether or not to honor treaties. That's very easy to understand even without council.

States rights. Damn, that's the right's answer for everything.

Gayle said...

LOL Nanc! I like that "running naked through the cactus" solution better than mine! Please remind me to never get on your bad side! ROTF!

Gayle said...

In addition, I'm ignoring Ducky. I don't argue with mindless robots.

The Merry Widow said...

Gayle-That was my idea, taking potshots at him!