A friend’s recent email alerted me to the case of a Mexican national, in the USA illegally, who was convicted in 1994 of kidnapping, brutally raping and strangling to death two Texas teenage girls. His name is Jose Ernesto Medellin and he was sentenced to die by a Texas court after confessing to the crime.
In 1997, Medellin asked for help from the Mexican government. In 2003, Mexico took Medellin’s case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found in 2004 that US Courts had violated the Vienna Convention in their handling of the case. Shortly afterwards Medellin’s appeals were exhausted here in the US and the US Supreme Court refused to hear his case which cleared the way for his execution.
Then, in early 2005, President Bush weighed in stating that the United States would “discharge its international obligations” in the case and give Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals on death row in the US additional consideration in US courts. While there are questions as to whether or not the US is obligated to abide by or submit to decisions from an international court, I am of the opinion the process itself is problematic. The whole story, from which I distilled the above, can be found at CyberNewsServices. Links are also provided to the President’s 2005 statement as well as a legal opinion on the matter.
While distasteful, it may very well be that the US has abandoned its sovereignty and subjugated its authority to legislate and enforce its own laws to the rulings of international bodies that care nothing for US interests. And since I first heard of Sandra Day O’Connor’s appeal to the opinions and decisions of foreign courts in determining the disposition of US cases, I have been outraged that we should do such a thing. In 2004, members of the US House of Representatives protested
… the court’s increasing use of foreign legal precedents in interpreting the Constitution.
Republican House members Tom Feeney of Florida and Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, joined by more than 50 co-sponsors, will propose a non-binding resolution next week that would express the sense of Congress that judicial decisions should not be based on foreign laws or court decisions.
While Feeney and Goodlatte, who are members of the House Judiciary Committee, can’t summon the justices before them to defend their use of foreign precedents, they hope to fire a rhetorical shot across the bow of jurists who increasingly look to foreign legal trends, especially in death penalty and gay rights cases.
I believe they were right to do so. Yet, just a few years later, we find the President of the United States of America doing essentially the same thing as Justice O’Connor. It is my contention that subjecting our laws and Constitution to the vagaries and variances of foreign courts is incredibly dangerous and sets a horrid precedent.
The GOP and Republican leaders at all levels of government should understand, not what is taking place in the courts, but what takes place in the hearts and minds of the people when this sort of thing happens. In the email alerting me to this story is the statement of a lifelong Republican and staunch Bush supporter who said if this stands, he will vote for a Democrat in ‘08. This sort of thing produces distrust, discouragement and disgust in the rank and file of both party and nation. It’s one more bad choice, after bad choices in Education, Entitlements, Immigration and so much more. It’s another incremental move away from people who stand for such nonsense. It’s the reason Conservatives and others are leaving in droves. Further, I believe this is the sort of “international entanglement” we would be wise to avoid as opposed to military actions abroad to protect US interests. Letting these sorts of legal rulings stand without challenge is one of many reasons charges Bush and others are globalists gain traction at home and abroad. If even the President will not defend our right to make and enforce our own laws, then who will?
The upcoming ‘08 race for President will have a huge impact on the way these sorts of questions will be resolved for the next decade or more. As such, it bears watching how the candidates respond to the issue, if the press even bothers to ask them about it. Would Obama or Hillary violate the oath they swore to defend the Constitution from foreign enemies? I don’t think Thompson, Hunter or any of the other GOP candidates would. But I didn’t think Bush would either.
This is yet another question that needs a hearing in the national debate. Perhaps someone from YouTube would be willing to ask. Or Tyra might take time from weighty questions like, “What’s on your iPod?” What does it mean to be an American if nothing uniquely American truly exists? How can we expect our own citizens or those of other nations to respect us if we do not respect ourselves? What does it mean when government opens itself to charges it is in violation of the 6th Amendment by refusing to be limited by the Constitution to subjecting the accused to a trial in “the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed”? In short, the question is, as Americans, to whom do we answer?
Thinking if we can’t answer the question, “To whom do we answer?”, the next question will be, “For whom does the bell toll?” …
Blue Collar Muse
Popularity: 34% [?]
Entries (RSS)