Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:30:09 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
A US Supreme Court case that got very little attention may be returning us
to the days of the substantial state's rights our Virginia ancestors intended.
In Medellin v. Texas, Mr. Medellin, a Mexican, killed two young women in
Texas and was convicted of murder. His lawyers appealed to the World Court
arguing that the Vienna Convention (to which the US is a signatory) required
Texas to allow Mr. Medellin to contact the Mexican consulate before his trial.
The World Court agreed and required the US to give Mr. Medellin a new trial.
The Bush Administration ordered Texas to do so. Texas refused and set up the
gas chamber for Mr. Medellin. The Bush Administration appealed to the US
Supreme Court.
The Court found for Texas, citing the fact, among others, that states have a
substantial amount of sovereignty granted by the Constitution and may not
necessarily be bound by all national obligations such as international
treaties. States have rights, and the Federal government has to respect them.
Thus, it appears that the Roberts' Court feels that the state's rights need
to be protected. Does this include secession? In an era of red and blue
states, and contentious politics, this is an important case interpreting the
Constitution.
J South
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|