United States doesn't Honor Treaty by Killing Death Row Inmate (In TX of course)

Interesting argument to make. I wonder if Rick Perry will make that argument in an immigration reform debate.

 

Except since the treaty was signed and ratified by the US Congress wouldn't that make it executing? I will admit I haven't read the whole treaty so I am not up on particulars but my understanding of the Supremacy Clause is that a treaty is in effect without having to make more law as the treaty itself is superior to US law short of the Constitution.

Anyway as far as this being Obama's fault if the Treaty does need more legislation then wouldn't this be Congress' fault or the prior Admin's fault since once they got it signed and ratified they didn't bother to get legislation passed to put the treaty in effect.

 

USSC says it not self-executing. EDIT - OK, I misstated this. Actually it's about the remedy demanded by the ICJ (a hearing). No legislation implementing a hearing has ever passed Congress.

Obama's been in office almost 3 years. He had a Democratic Congress for the first two. He had ample opportunity to pass implementing legislation.

 

I am curious what is the reasoning why. Can you cite me some info about that?

Do you place any blame then on the prior Admin. or Congressional leaders since the Executive cannot unilaterally introduce or pass legislation?

 

1. To be specific - it's about the remedy demanded by the ICC. The court said that it wouldn't stay the execution for pending legislation.

Leal and the United States ask us to stay the execution so that Congress may consider whether to enact legislation implementing the Avena decision. Leal contends that the Due Process Clause prohibits Texas from executing him while such legislation is under consideration. This argument is meritless. The Due Process Clause does not prohibit a State from carrying out a lawful judgment in light of unenacted legislation that might someday that might someday authorize
a collateral attack on that judgment.

2. Yes, but Obama had his chances too, so it's lame for his admin to be whining about it now.

 

Thank you that is interesting.

True Obama did but why place blame solely on him when obviously the previous Admin. failed to follow up on a treaty that they signed and the Congress is the branch that actually passes legislation.

 

It has to do with the language in the treaty itself. Some treaties are self executing, others require that adopting countries pass legislation to give the treaty effect. This happens a lot more in the EU than the US, because so much of their stuff is treaty based (including the very existence of the EU). Basically, this treaty (I am assuming from what the Supreme Court said, having not read the text myself) and others like it are an agreement to pass legislation within the adopting nations. The treaty cannot be enforced, because it has no enforcement provisions. The adopting nations are responsible for creating internal enforcement legislation.

Self-executing treaties are on the same level as Congressional laws, both having supremecy over all but the Constitution. Where a treaty and a Federal law are in conflict, I believe the last in time rule controls.

 

So basically it's all falls on congress for not doing there job not the current admins fault.

 

If Obama had really wanted to make an issue of it, it would already be law since he a Democratic congress for 2 years. Obviously it was not a priority for him.

 

I've read up some more on it and that does appear to be the situation. As such then I withdraw my previous criticism of the Perry and the State of Texas as they did follow the law as it is in the Leal case.

 

That is awesome logic. I will assume since it is such as a silly statement that it is sarcasm.

 

Makes perfect sense. Obama did nada for two years to get implementing legislation and then at the last second files an amicus brief. Very lame.