On February 28th, Pres. Bush ordered the states to give hearings to the 51 Mexican nationals who were parties to the World Court opinion in Mexico v. United States of America (Avena),
2004 I.C.J. 128 (Mar. 31, 2004). http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1345&scid=64

Today, the U.S. is withdrawing from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations -- The protocol requires signatories to let the World Court make the final decision when their citizens say they have been illegally denied the right to see a home-country diplomat when jailed abroad. Mexico v. United States of American (Avena), 2004 I.C.J. 128 (Mar. 31).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21981-2005Mar9.html?nav=rss_topnews

Anyone seen an attempt to use the Feb. 28 executive order yet?
I assume this won't go anywhere.

Is the president empowered to order the states to act because the Vienna Convention is a treaty and therefore "the law of the land" under the US Constitution?

I think I remember hearing about that get- together, wasn't that where they paraded around all those little sausages? I think they held it in the Western Auto, had a girl from Hogwaller jump out of a metal can -- she was covered in some kind of catfish bait-looking jelly stuff. Shouted something about the whole world going to the dogs and society in general smelling of sweaty socks. Mumbled that chicken thieves were running afoul of the law, but the broiler-rustlers weren't very high on the court's pecking order and their lawyers could barely scratch out a living. If that wasn't bad enough, someone was in the dad-burned kitchen with Dinah, strumming on a banjo, an OLD banjo.

Exit only.

I propose that the next TDCAA seminar be in Vienna so we can be instructed on the topic.

AP,
Weren't the chicken thieves actually running afowl of the law?

Lisa, you see in So. Georgia, we had to use generic words to cover many subjects. It made for shorter dictionaries, less time in the libraries and more time for character-building pursuits like banjo practice and training for the annual competition to see who could hold their arms out to their sides with a quart of Quaker State in each hand the longest. Got quite exciting during the finals, really. Be that as it may, chickens I believe can run afoul and certainly afowl, a term I learned after arriving in Houston from the States.

Speaking of chickens, being the son of a Southern Baptist preacher, which answers many of the questions about my so-called character, you can imagine we ate a lot of yardbird, growing up. That helped me come to the realization that a preacher's belt is nothing more than a leather fence around a chicken graveyard.

Ben,
I don't think that even the Supremacy Clause would allow a treaty to trump the Constitution itself:

"The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 16 (1957)

I think this means that a treaty could never give the President authority to meddle in state court prosecutions (especially by executive order). But I ain't no expert.

But the feds order state government entities to do things all the time....bus students, raise taxes to fund schools, pay for defendant lawyers, build prisons with larger cells and etc. Your answer is a good one but if the treaty agreement is found to comport with the constitution then it would seem that the cases could be overturned by a competent Court but, like you, I can't see how the federal executive could ever legally order the state executive to do anything.

Texas Attorney General's Magistrate's Guide:

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/vienna_guidebook.pdf


U.S. State Department Consular Notification info:

http://travel.state.gov/law/consular/consular_636.html

I suspect the CCA's answer will be quickly forthcoming, now that 6-3 the SC has said it doesn't affect confessions.