| Author |
Message
|
| Gryphon |
 Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject: Supreme Court Ruling and Impact on International Treaties |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
|
I understand from today's ruling by the Supreme Court that States are not considered bound by International treaties signed by the US Govt unless the treaty explicitly states that the States ARE bound.
Strange as this may seem, the State of California has always completely ignored the Tax Treaties that the US has signed with many foreign countries, and taxes all California residents on all their income from anywhere. Even if the Fed exempts certain foreign incomes under treaty! But that isnt news - todays ruling from the Supreme Court seems to go further, and imply the following:
1) The Fed and the States are not bound by rulings of the World Court.
2) The States are not bound by the provisions of any treaty signed by the US, unless the treaty says so, OR Congress passes a law that binds them to it. If they get round to it.
Please comment on my deductions. I may have it wrong. But if the States arent bound by Treaties entered into by the US, then what is the purpose of having a 'State Dept? Does this mean that States are at liberty to decide the terms of their own relations with foreign countries and enter into their own international agreements? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1019
Location: London
|
| Interesting questions but, being UKian, I haven't a clue. Anybody else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
The Constitution says "All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
It's hard for me to understand how the Supreme Court could find that Texas is not bound by the treaty in question, which was, I believe, ratified by the Senate many years ago.
I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1282
|
Texas, is arguing that since the States Courts are limited to the Federal Constitutions and laws, so should be any International Court or laws.
The case involves the 'Death Penalty' which is not a justifiable penalty in many countries, including Mexico. The dispute is not over the act of a crime. Then since the crime (undisputed) was committed in Texas, then the punishment should be the right of State.
The Supreme Court, has probably taken a back door into its decision, which prevents every foreign court from intervention in every US court and for every imaginable reason. The SC, should have been tested on a Federal Prisoner case, but I suspect the results would be the same.
edit;
I should have mentioned the original complaint was denial of right under that Treaty, which does state any person not from a Country, has the right to representation from that nations counsel in the Nation bringing charges. This would go to the attorney appointed or to the chosen attorney of the defendant, my guess, not the state. Think it was an US attorney, that took this case through the Texas courts, US District and to the SC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gryphon |
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
|
In the Texas case I personally think the defence attorney is responsible for protecting the defendant's interests and rights; if those rights included access to consular support under a Treay then the attorney should have known that and requested it. It isnt clear to me if the consular access was never requested, or subsequently denied by Texas. If it was never requested, that isnt Texas' failure, it's the counsel's failure. If Texas denied the access, that's just plain wrong.
Regarding the decision of the SC, I too dont understand why the SC didnt hold that any Treaty is 'the supreme law of the land.'
Of course, this judgement is very bad news for Americans who get arrested overseas. Right of consular access? Not any more...
I wonder what this will do to the tourist trade in Mexico this summer?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1019
Location: London
|
So are we saying that the State of Texas denied a foreigner access to his/her embassy? And is justifying it by claiming that international treaties, even if signed by the US, do not have to apply in Texas?
I knew there were more reasons for me to refuse to visit the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 850
|
I don't think we are quite saying that. The prosecutors failed to notify the Mexican authorities when an alleged murderer went on trial. But it seems that the defendant's own lawyers neglected to do so as well, and they could easily have done so.
This is a rare day indeed. Sunshinewarrior and George W. Bush are in agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 1019
Location: London
|
| Bunbury wrote: |
This is a rare day indeed. Sunshinewarrior and George W. Bush are in agreement. |
Hey. He doesn't want my strong pound in his country, and neither do I. 
What can I say except roll on 2009 when he won't any longer be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I might feel able to visit my sis in Chicago after that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1282
|
All the various States, with their own laws in the US, the legal systems of those states, the SC and Federal Law accept the notion 'Ignorance of a law, cannot be used as a defense'. I would think most every modern legal system of any Nation would also agree, in law or principle. This one of the primary arguments which landed 'Miranda Rights' as a practiced policy & strictly enforced. Any person arrested, must be told their rights under that provision. Any person traveling to a foreign Nation, having a passport or going through a 'port of entry' should have had some advise on the potential problems. Narcotics, guns, ammunition, limits on certain legal products, just a few examples and in many Islamic Nations the rules are quite long.
Article 5 USC , as Bunbury mentioned, does give International Treaties teeth under our system. However this is not true under most governments, where these treaties are considered agreements, enforceable by a current ruling party. Keota a good example.
For an amendment to be added to the US Constitution, Congress must agree, with a 2/3 (66%) vote (both Chambers) then to become a "law of the land", 3/4ths the States must ratify that amendment. The process for a treaty, is less complicated and legally questionable. A potential Treaty is negotiated, Presented to the President for signing, passed to the Senate to get a 2/3rds majority (of present members) voting in agreement.
Its then a viable treaty. The anomaly (equal status with amendments)which is at the direction of the Constitution itself, probably stems from required international assistant during the times of the fledgling Nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 1070
|
Yup, and that's the danger. The constitution can be overwritten by treaty. We all like to hope it will never happen, but it can. So, anyway, I'm happy to see rulings that undermine that particular part of the constitution that makes treaties equal with it.
... Even though I know it isn't correct for such rulings to happen.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gryphon |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
|
| kojax wrote: |
Yup, and that's the danger. The constitution can be overwritten by treaty. We all like to hope it will never happen, but it can. So, anyway, I'm happy to see rulings that undermine that particular part of the constitution that makes treaties equal with it.
... Even though I know it isn't correct for such rulings to happen.... |
I didnt interpret jackson33's explanation in that way. Is there any precedent where a Treaty has effectively changed the Constitution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1412
|
| George Washington & co. wrote: |
| This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. |
I always thought it was remarkably out of sync with the way politics are done today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1282
|
| Pong wrote: |
| George Washington & co. wrote: |
| This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. |
I always thought it was remarkably out of sync with the way politics are done today. |
That is the anomaly mentioned above. The treaty while in effect, is equal to that of an amendment or that all States are subject to an non state ratified agreement.
After our war for Independence from England, with the assistance of France (created treaty of alliance) and France revolted against its own Monarchy government, war with England seemed emanate. Washington voided that treaty as an agreement with the then dead King Louie of France and effectually sided with England. The very same people that gave Treaty a Status, then voided that status.
I don't think the SC ruling on the Texas Case, was voiding that treaty in any way however. Its presumed our laws, if followed (and they were) should have covered any implication of additional rights outside our system, for an international defendant. The attorney for the defendant, was saying no, that the responsibility was for the State, which in the end the SC used to side step the real issue. 'International Law' validity in our courts... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
