Obama wants execution stopped.....

This is a discussion on Obama wants execution stopped..... within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Hopyard Do you think our disarmament treaties all contain language saying what to do if Kansas decides to build a ballistic missile? ...

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 121 to 125 of 125
Like Tree32Likes

Thread: Obama wants execution stopped.....

  1. #121
    Distinguished Member Array LanceORYGUN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ORYGUN
    Posts
    1,517
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Do you think our disarmament treaties all contain language saying what to do if Kansas decides to build a
    ballistic missile? Do our free trade agreements say what to do if Iowa imposes a tariff?

    These are imaginary red herring arguments that you are conjuring up here, since no such programs or legislation existed when these treaties were made. And in the real world they never will.

    However, Texas law did exist prior to this treaty. If treaties are going to invalidate laws in our country, then yes, the Congress does need to act as a whole to specifically implement that. The President and Senate alone do not have the legal right to make new domestic laws, or overturn existing law.

    I trust the credentials of Justice John Roberts and his knowledge of our constitution, much more than that of anyone here in this forum. He got a bachelor's degree at Harvard in only 3 years, and yet still managed to graduate summa cum laude. As an attorney, he argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. I cannot think of anyone more qualified than he is to lead the Supreme Court.

    .
    atctimmy likes this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #122
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,599
    Quote Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN View Post
    These are imaginary red herring arguments that you are conjuring up here, since no such programs or legislation existed when these treaties were made. And in the real world they never will.

    However, Texas law did exist prior to this treaty. If treaties are going to invalidate laws in our country, then yes, the Congress does need to act as a whole to specifically implement that. The President and Senate alone do not have the legal right to make new domestic laws, or overturn existing law.

    I trust the credentials of Justice John Roberts and his knowledge of our constitution, much more than that of anyone here in this forum. He got a bachelor's degree at Harvard in only 3 years, and yet still managed to graduate summa cum laude. As an attorney, he argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. I cannot think of anyone more qualified than he is to lead the Supreme Court.
    .
    Where does the part I put in bold come from?

    Roberts is indeed qualified as are all of them. If you ever watch them when they make appearances on TV, the quality of their intellect as individuals comes through rather clearly. That however does not mean they necessarily get a specific case "right." Nor does it mean the judgments are free from ideological bias--in this instance a "states rights" bias.

    Anyway, if I have accomplished anything by dragging this conversation out, I hope that it is to convey that
    when Bush and when O brought these matter before the court it had little or nothing to do with sympathy for the condemned or partisan matters, and everything to do with core issues of Federalism and Presidential authority, and with some rather thorny complex issue which go well beyond the fate of the condemned.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #123
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    The Presidents were clearly overstepping their bounds when they tried to interfere with the state carrying out it's judicial functions. Article II Section 2 paragraph I clearly states the the President's power to grant reprieves and pardons is limited to "Offences against the United States." Unless a murder is committed on some kind of federal reservation murder is generally a violation of state law. And as such the President's wishes are no more significant than your's or mine.

    Article 36 of the treaty say "competent authorities of the receiving state" and "the said authorities". Nowhere does it specify who specifically is required to inform the arrestee of their options. It does not say the arresting officer must notify. It does not say the intake officer at the jail must notify. It does not say the prosecutor must notify. It does not say the court appointed defense attorney must notify. Absent specific language in the treaty directing how it is to be implemented it falls to the signatory nations (states in treaty terms) to adopt the laws or regulations necessary to implement it.

    As treaties are a function of foreign policy and that is carried out by the State Department at the direction of the President, in Leal's case, the failure to comply with this treaty lies with Warren Christopher and Bill Clinton.
    atctimmy likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #124
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,599
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    The Presidents were clearly overstepping their bounds when they tried to interfere with the state carrying out it's judicial functions. Article II Section 2 paragraph I clearly states the the President's power to grant reprieves and pardons is limited to "Offences against the United States." Unless a murder is committed on some kind of federal reservation murder is generally a violation of state law. And as such the President's wishes are no more significant than your's or mine.

    Article 36 of the treaty say "competent authorities of the receiving state" and "the said authorities". Nowhere does it specify who specifically is required to inform the arrestee of their options. It does not say the arresting officer must notify. It does not say the intake officer at the jail must notify. It does not say the prosecutor must notify. It does not say the court appointed defense attorney must notify. Absent specific language in the treaty directing how it is to be implemented it falls to the signatory nations (states in treaty terms) to adopt the laws or regulations necessary to implement it.

    As treaties are a function of foreign policy and that is carried out by the State Department at the direction of the President, in Leal's case, the failure to comply with this treaty lies with Warren Christopher and Bill Clinton.
    Ach! I had hoped this thread would end instead of continuing with endless repetitive pseudo logical argument.

    First bolded item-- No one was issuing a pardon or a reprieve. That isn't what this was about. Certainly not Bush who was extremely tight with them as both Governor of Texas and President of the US. The pardon and reprieve section has nothing whatsoever to do with the upholding of treaties.

    Second in bold-- "Competent authorities" is a catch all phrase and includes the local sheriff. How else could it possibly work? How would anyone in any country have any right to consular notification if the duty didn't go to every level of law enforcement? You could narrowly define "competent authority" as one obscure paper pusher at the FBI and thus negate the whole purpose of the treaty.

    Third in bold- We've hashed that one ad nauseum. Honorable people and honorable governors obey the spirit, intent and letter of the law.

    Fourth-- That is a laughable statement on your part. How do you think that would work? Would the competent authorities at the local level first notify State which would then notify an embassy or consul? That still would require that the arresting officer take the first step, or that the initial magistrate take care of business at the first bond hearing. In short, "competent authority" is the first person in the process to take custody of the accused. That's where the responsibility has to start. It can extend to the magistrate, to the defender's office, to the clerk or court, to the trial judge, but it has to start at the level of the arresting officer or perhaps the booking process if the right to notify is to have any real meaning.

    Yup, it would be nice if Congress spelled some of this out but you know what, I still think the locals will just do their thing and plead ignorance.

    I saw something on C-Span yesterday about a guy who was held for more than 5 years without trial. He was acquitted eventually, after he by accident came to the attention of an experienced trial attorney. I am sure that everyone in that jail's management, everyone in the court house, the defender's office too, all failed to do the lawful and honorable thing--- press the case to some conclusion. It won't ever be different with consul notification. There will (no matter what law Congress passes or doesn't pass) always be the lazy and inept and uncaring who will not do their job in a responsible way.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #125
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,846
    Since the subject involved in this debate is now worm food, I think its time to close it.
    Hopyard likes this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can a president stop a state execution
,

can a president stop an execution

,
can president stop an execution
,
can president stop exacution
,
can president stop state execution
,
can the potus stop an execution
,
can the president stay an execution?
,
can the president stop a execution
,

can the president stop a state execution

,

can the president stop an execution

,
execution stopped president
,
has a president ever stopped an execution
,
obama wants stay of execution
,
obama wants to stop execution
,
obama wants to stop the execution
Click on a term to search for related topics.