Supreme Court Rules "Bush EXCEEDED His Powers" (LAT)

[kpete]

Supreme Court rules Bush exceeded his powers

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 26, 2008

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rebuffed President Bush on Tuesday for exceeding his powers under the law, ruling he does not have the "unilateral authority" to force state officials to comply with an international treaty.

The Constitution gives the president the power "to execute the laws, not make them," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Unless Congress passes a law to enforce a treaty, the president usually cannot do it on his own, he said.

The 6-3 decision was a rare defeat for Bush in the courts, and it came in an unusual case that combined international law, foreign treaties and the fate of foreign nationals condemned to die in Texas, California and several other states.

In a surprise move three years ago, Bush intervened on the side of the Mexican government and said Texas prosecutors should reopen the cases of Jose Medellin, a Houston murderer, and several others serving death sentences. Bush cited the Vienna Convention, which obliges signing countries to notify each other when one of their citizens is arrested and charged with a serious crime. Mexico said American prosecutors failed repeatedly to give notice when Mexican natives were charged with capital crimes.

more at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-scotus26mar26,1,6195044.story?track=rss

[Canuckistanian]

1. And this is news... how?

There are no consequences for this story. I predict this is the last you will hear of this.

Another crime ignored.

[JuniperLea]

3. Sure there are!

This had to piss Chimpy off royal! He will try again...

[Ms. Toad]

10. The real crime is that treaties can now be ignored

without legal consequence.

In this case (I can't believe I'm saying this), Bush's inclinations were right. We entered into a treaty, Texas ignored it, since it wasn't convenient (wouldn't want a little thing like a treaty to slow down its rush to execute everyone remotely connected with a homicide), and Bush tried to insist that Texas comply with the treaty.

I predict there will be major negative consequences from this decision - as a starter, just wait until the next time another country ignores a treaty which protects Americans overseas and see how loudly we scream.

[MaryCeleste]

11. Are we are not a signatory to the ICJ treaty? Seen posted elsewhere we are not

[Ms. Toad]

16. The United States is one of the signatories

to the 1963 Vienna Convention, which is the source of the treaty obligations regarding the rights of people detained in other nations. The US ratified the Vienna Convention which requires the local authorities to promptly inform arrested foreigners of their right to consular assistance. At the request of the detainee, the authorities must notify the consulate of the arrest and permit consular access to the detained national. Texas has repeatedly failed to do this in death penalty cases. There have been multi-facted challenges to Texas' blatant disregard for the rights of foreign nationals - in this case, the ICJ decision regarding enforcement was the means of challenging the underlying treaty violation.

Here is Amnesty International's take on the underlying treaty violations - written in 1998:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=31&did=580

It is an longstanding problem, and ultimately we will have fewer enforceable rights since foreign countries are far less likely to ignore the rights of US citizens if they know the rights of their citizens will be ignored here

[JuniperLea]

2. I'm so glad I was sitting down!

This is amazing!

Wonderful find, kpete!

[Mme. Defarge]

4. No sh*t, Sherlock n/t

[LaurenG]

5. the president usually cannot do it on his own

usually being the operative word here. Thanks for the heads up! K and R

[Breeze54]

6. But this is really about the prisoners in Iraq and Gauntanamo, isn't it?

I saw this on PBS last night. It's a hairy thing, the way it was explained. Hairy for the prisoners.

And the US, according to 32 (?) foreign prisoners, weren't allowed to consult with their diplomats.

It's pretty complicated and twisted and has do do with two American citizens being held in Iraq.

I think that's what they were saying.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. There's a novelty. The Supreme Court coming to a constitutional decision.

When it comes to "Conventions" Bush seems to prefer Vienna to Geneva.

[ThomCat]

8. Um... I thought treaties ARE laws once they're ratified.

:shrug:

This really seems like an odd ruling. Once we negotiate a treaty, it still doesn't mean jack shit unless we then pass a federal law saying the same thing?

:wtf:

[MaryCeleste]

12. Has it been ratified?

[ThomCat]

13. They're calling it an International Treaty

Not a Proposed International Treaty. That makes it sound like it's been ratified. :shrug:

[MaryCeleste]

15. I read on DU earlier what we had not signed/ratified which is why Bush could not enforce it

not sure what is actually true.

There is an international treaty against landmines, we are not signatories and do not follow it.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. Well, Supreme DUH. nt

[merh]

14. And this case can be used if anyone had the resources

and/or the wherewithal to call Bush on his illegal war(s) and on his authorizing torture.

I like this language

Texas prosecutors balked and decided to fight Bush in court. In Tuesday's opinion, Roberts concluded first that the Vienna Convention is not "binding federal law," since Congress had not passed a law to enforce it. And in such cases, the president had no authority to force state or local officials to comply with the treaty or the ruling of the International Court.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts' opinion. And Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the result, saying the treaty at issue did not have the force of law in this country.

There are federal statutes against torture and the Joint Resolution required compliance with the UN.

Bush has acted outside of the UN Charter and the federal statutes and according to this opinion, he had no authority to do so.

This opinion is vital to restoring to congress the powers to make the law.

It impacts his signing statements and his executive orders, if anyone has the courage to call him on his crimes.

[progressoid]

19. "if anyone has the courage to call him on his crimes."

Pretty big

IF

[crimsonblue]

17. This is actually a bad ruling, people...

It is nothing short of a power grab by the Roberts Court. Treaties are automatically binding to the state through Article VI of our lovely Constitution. By allowing states to opt out of treaties, it completely undermines the importance of treaties in international affairs. (sorry if this was already touched on)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

21. Horrible.

Power grab from the Roberts Court. I really hate that shit. :-(

on edit, I have to add this, apparently, :sarcasm:

I hate when the underground goes mainstream. :eyes:

[leftofthedial]

18. this ruling could do irreperable harm to George W. Bush

therefore, I hereby overturn the Court's ruling. This in no way establishes a precedent.

[lovuian]

20. does this mean the north American union

may be screwed