From SCOTUS Blog:

The Supreme Court, in a sweeping rejection of claims of power in the presidency, ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the President does not have the authority to order states to relax their criminal procedures to obey a ruling of the World Court. The decision came in the case of Medellin v. Texas (06-984).

SCOTUS Blog Entry

The CCA should be praised for rightfully protecting state's rights against federal interference. It took political courage to take that stand against the anti-death penalty crowd, international opinion, a president who was a former Texas governor and all the naysayers.

To read prior threads on this topic, click


here and


here.

[This message was edited by JB on 03-25-08 at .]

I agree with JB. But this is worrisome:

quote:

---

������
13The dissent refrains from deciding the issue, but finds it �difficultto believe that in the exercise of his Article II powers pursuant to a ratified treaty, the President can never take action that would result in setting aside state law.� Post, at 29. We agree. The questions here arethe far more limited ones of whether he may unilaterally create federal law by giving effect to the judgment of this international tribunalpursuant to this non-self-executing treaty, and, if not, whether he mayrely on other authority under the Constitution to support the actiontaken in this particular case. Those are the only questions we decide.

---

I think the SCOTUS is just being careful to note that the Constitution, in other areas (such as security of the nation), may well give the executive branch of the federal government sufficient authority to overcome some state right.

BTW, chalk up another loss for "your" national representatives, the ABA. Yes, the "American" Bar Assocation submitted an amicus brief supporting the enforcement of a foreign court judgment like Avenain state courts.

That would be unsurprisingly consistent with their anti-death penalty position.

Just out of law school I was a member. I started reading the drivel and realizing that these guys view the law and most particularly the Constitution like a buffet. A little carrots, green beans and meatloaf, taking only what they want, and leaving the rest behind.

You can't pick and choose strict construction only when it suits your particular interest.

Lifetime appointments must inhibit reading and comprehension skills.

Like Philip, I was once a member of the ABA. I cancelled my membership many years ago when they first took an official anti-death penalty position (or at least when I first noticed it).

I wish the national media would take a look at the percentage of the bar that doesn't belong to the ABA when they quote some "official" position as somehow authoritative. I don't know the numbers, but I can say that I don't really know a lot of people who are members.

The ABA doesn't speak for me.