Category: Uncategorized

Excerpt from Concurring Opinion of Justice Stevens in the March 25, 2008 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Medellin v. Texas.

In today’s breaking news, Mexico is renewing appeal to the International Court of Justice (or World Court) to halt the U.S. executions of five Mexican nationals until their cases are reviewed to determine what impact may have resulted from their not having been advised of their rights to assistance from the Mexico consulate offices.

So far, Texas is refusing to acknowledge that a review of the denied rights is appropriate, because procedural rules require issues to be raised earlier. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that neither the World Court nor the President of the USA can order Texas to adjust its procedures in relation to Mexican nationals on death row.

However, in a concurring opinion, excerpted below (with paragraph breaks added for readability), Justice Stevens argues that Texas still has good reasons to want to do the right thing and reopen the cases to assess the impact that Consular representation may have had.

Even though the [International Court of Justice’s] ICJ’s judgment in Avena is
not “the supreme Law of the Land,” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, no one disputes
that it constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United
States. Ante, at 8. By issuing a memorandum declaring that state courts should
give effect to the judgment in Avena, the President made a commendable attempt
to induce the States to discharge the Nation’s obligation.

I agree with the Texas judges and the majority of this Court that the President’s
memorandum is not binding law. Nonetheless, the fact that the President cannot
legislate unilaterally does not absolve the United States from its promise
to take action necessary to comply with the ICJ’s judgment.

Under the express terms of the Supremacy Clause, the United States’ obligation
to “undertak[e] to comply” with the ICJ’s decision falls on each of the States
as well as the Federal Government. One consequence of our form of government
is that sometimes States must shoulder the primary responsibility for protecting
the honor and integrity of the Nation.

Texas’ duty in this respect is all the greater since it was Texas that—by failing to provide consular notice in accordance with the Vienna Convention — ensnared the United States in the current controversy. Having already put the Nation in breach of one treaty, it is now up to Texas to prevent the breach of another.

The decision in Avena merely obligates the United States “to provide, by means
of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences
of the [affected] Mexican nationals,” 2004 I. C. J., at 72, ¶153(9), “with
a view to ascertaining” whether the failure to provide proper notice to consular
officials “caused actual prejudice to the defendant in the process of administration
of criminal justice,” id., at 60, ¶121.

The cost to Texas of complying with Avena would be minimal, particularly given the remote likelihood that the violation of the Vienna Convention actually prejudiced José Ernesto Medellín. See ante, at 4–6, and n. 1. It is a cost that the State of Oklahoma unhesitatingly assumed.4

On the other hand, the costs of refusing to respect the ICJ’s judgment are significant. The entire Court and the President agree that breach will jeopardize the United States’ “plainly compelling” interests in “ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign governments, and demonstrating commitment to the role of international law.” Ante, at 28. When the honor of the Nation is balanced against the modest cost of compliance, Texas would do well to recognize that more is at stake than whether judgments of the ICJ, and the principled admonitions of the President of the United States, trump state procedural rules in the absence of implementing legislation.

The Court’s judgment, which I join, does not foreclose further appropriate action by the State of Texas.

We agree with Justice Stevens that Texas is behaving badly in its stubborn refusal to give hearing to the rights of Mexican nationals. And as Justice Stevens warned, here we go again. Texas stubbornness is the cause of another appeal to the World Court.

To all this we only have one thing more to say: Texas, of all states in the USA, should assume moral leadership when it comes to respecting the international rights of Mexico and Mexican citizens.–gm

A spellbinding read. We are all poorer for having lost this fascinating human being.

The following email comes from Italy–gm

God bless you for your beautiful writing and moving humanity: I had tears in my eyes reading your splendid article (forwarded by a wonderful peace / justice activist) about this wonderful man and humanitarian who was unjustly suspected and harassed by the FBI, which under the Bush regime has become a bullying thought police, instead of being there to protect decent citizens against real criminals and terrorists many of whom occupy the highest seats of power in Washington and elsewhere.

The history — oops, I mean the HERstory — of Texas blogging just got a new pair of boots, with today’s debut of Diane Wilson’s blog, Diane4justice, at wordpress.com.

Her debut post, not counting “Hello World” on June 15, was a June 19th (yes Juneteenth) report on her mischief up at the offices of the Indian Consulate in Houston.

Her diplomatic mission was to raise up the need for more governmental attention to the surviving community of the Bhopal chemical disaster caused by Diane’s hometown nemesis Uni*n Carbide.

The Consul agreed to meet with Diane, and he explained to her how there were “constraints.” To which our “Unreasonable Woman” responds:

Everybody knew the constraints. The whole world knew. its like a big fat elephant in a small room and nobody wants to talk about the elephant. Goes something like this (this is my thinking, here) the corporate world and the US government does not care to have corporate killings and environmental mayhem took to task in another country. They’re thinking, Hey we brought our company down here. Now give us a free license to do what we will. That way all involved will make a profit. Oh well, not the poor and not the disfranchised. No! The important people! Besides if Uni*n Carbide and Dow are brought to task for this horrendous crime, doesn’t that mean that other foreign corporations that create a mess will be brought to task?? Well, that wouldn’t do! That would set a precedent!

Here’s the link, grrrlfriend. What the heck do you suppose she’ll do next? Now we get the double thrill of following her thinking, too! –gm

Michael Chertoff…Don’t Mess with Texas

By Jay J. Johnson-Castro, Sr.
jay@villadelrio.com

Inside the Checkpoints

(DEL RIO–May 16, 2008) Back on February 6, 2008, “Inside the Checkpoints” had the privilege of breaking the news that Michael Chertoff, with the dictatorial powers of the Department of Homeland Security, was being sued. He was sued by one woman, Eloisa Tamez, a property owner. He threatened her that he was going to seize her small piece of land along the banks of the Rio Grande. With the help of Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, Chertoff ultimately lost that law suit, which set a precedent for other victims of Chertoff.

Back in February, “Inside the Checkpoints” concluded with the following paragraph.

Eloisa Tamez, along with hundreds of others, has been a victim of trauma, your tyranny and…terror. No one in government, local, state, or national, elected or otherwise, has stepped up to protect Eloisa, to right the wrongs being leveled on her and her property. So much for security in her homeland! It has taken the volunteer efforts of fellow citizens and a willing team of legal experts to stand with her in her fight against a form of terrorism that she is not otherwise being protected from, a terrorism that originates from one man. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff! He has just been sued.

It is again the privilege of “Inside the Checkpoints” to make a new announcement and address that final paragraph.

You have been sued…again…Mr. Chertoff!

From El Paso to Brownsville, the 1250 mile TBC…the Texas Border Coalition of Mayors, Judges and economic leadership of the Texas-Mexico border are standing up in behalf of Eloisa Tamez and all of us, “we the people of the Rio Grande corridor”. They are suing you Mr. Chertoff. And, like Eloisa Tamez, the TBC is being represented by Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

What does all of this mean? It means that, unfortunately for you, you have “messed with Texas”. Not a good idea. We Texans are successfully defying you and your dictatorial powers. We are taking our government back. The nation and the world are watching us do so. From Asia to Australia, Europe to the Middle East and Africa, as well as the rest of North and South America. All are watching as we the people of the Texas-Mexico border are standing up to you. And, we will win.

You have exceeded the laws of our land and you willfully operate outside the law of Congress. You are therefore flagrantly and illegally violating the law. That makes you an “outlaw” and more of an “illegal” than the humble people, including innocent immigrant children, whom you hunt down like cockroaches and imprison for profit.

Shockingly, you waived 36 Congressional Acts…a century’s worth of American legislature…to build an “iron curtain” on American soil. Sure you had Congressional authority in the Secure Fence Act, and the waiver power in the REAL ID Act. But no one of credibility and integrity figured that you’d violate our treaties with the already violated Native Americans, let alone waive their religious rights and desecrate their burial and other sacred grounds. You waived “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act” and “The American Indian Religious Freedom Act”…to build a wall!

Wait and see what happens when the State of Texas, the State of New Mexico, Arizona and California come to grips with the fact that you waived far more than those 36 Congressional Acts. You even waived all our state and local laws along with “all federal laws”. Isn’t that what is meant when your Mega Waiver included “all federal, state or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of those laws”?

Do you really think you can undo a century of the people’s congress and the laws and sovereignty of the states of the United States? If you do think so, you are indeed in willful violation of our Constitution and deserving of more than a boot in the buttocks. More rightly, you should be indicted for going along with the supremacist architects of a scheme that flagrantly violates our democracy. In some countries, such an act would be considered treason.

Be that as it may, for now, Mr. Chertoff, you have been sued…again. And it won’t be the last time. You have willfully and without conscience or moral fiber accepted the role of a dictator in these United States. You have waived the balance of power of our Congress. Instead of being a Secretary of Homeland Security, you have become a tyrannical threat to the security of our country.

What a shame that “we the people” should have to go to the Supreme Court of the United States to petition it for protection from such tyrannical forces and in order to stop you and the construction of what we not long ago called an “iron curtain”, a symbol of cruelty built by totalitarian forces. That Communist wall no longer exists, Mr. Chertoff. Neither will your wall exist in Texas.

If you haven’t yet figured it out, sir, you are about to quickly learn that “Don’t Mess with Texas!” is more than a public relations slogan.