Obama asks for stay of execution in Texas.

#126
#126
utvolpj said:
how is it a strawman to say this is not US law that the states must follow?

Could allowing him to talk to the consulate not have opened up a bunch of issues that possibly could have even allowed for a new trial? This guy was in prison for 16yrs without once requesting the call. The only reason he did this was for a last minute effort to save his own skin that isn't worth the $.05 long distance charge.
Click to expand...

Because I never said the states must follow. I said in this case, it would have been to the greater good for them to choose to honor it.

If allowing him to talk to the consulate led to some legal avenue he hadn't exercised, I fail to see how that is a bad thing. That's part of getting a fair proceeding. If everything really has been done by the book in his case, there is nothing to worry about. The call would be fruitless at this point anyway since he was already convicted.
 
#127
#127
joevol320 said:
so you think he should be executed, but you also think texas is small minded because they didn't listen to the UN. typical liberals, wants it both ways.
Click to expand...

Not everything is black and white.

And hide behind your labels, that way you can avoid having to think. It's your go-to move.
 
#128
#128
IPorange said:
In this specific case, Texas could have honored the agreement, let the guy have a token conversation with his consulate and then fried him. Doing so would have had the same result for this guy, and not put American lives abroad at increased risk and not eroded confidence in the US to honor what they agree to.

Saying I'm advocating the treaty over existing US laws is a gross simplification of what I've written multiple times. You can't ignore all the nuance and build a straw man to you liking. Otherwise, I could claim that you believe all US treaties should be ignored and broken.

Oh wait, some of the folks in this thread probably DO believe that.
Click to expand...

IP the assumptions you make were true I would agree with you. I do not agree with those who are liberal bashing you. I am well aware you are a well thought out dude.

It is your assumptions that are incorrect. This is not checkers it was political chess. Obama made a play. He assuredly had the check mate in play with the consulate in Mexico. If it was a simple conversation then I might agree with you. This however would of been a year long delay. It would have been a black eye for Perry. That was always the goal here. Perry handled it marvelously like he has most things in his political career. He ignored it. He made no grand statements and let the guy be put down without issue.

The divdiing line between most "liberals" and blue dog dems/moderate republicans is the schism between academic theory and actual process. The element of corruptions and evil intent in humans is highly underestimated by most so called "liberals."
 
#129
#129
joevol320 said:
also, he's been in the country since he was a little kid. it wasn't like he was just arrived.

this is political, liberals doing what liberals do.
Click to expand...

Hell ya, it's political. It's international politics. This has nothing to do with the POS in the case, and everything to do with the treaty and paying lip-service to it.
 
#130
#130
Jewbaccah said:
IP the assumptions you make were true I would agree with you. I do not agree with those who are liberal bashing you. I am well aware you are a well thought out dude.

It is your assumptions that are incorrect. This is not checkers it was political chess. Obama made a play. He assuredly had the check mate in play with the consulate in Mexico. If it was a simple conversation then I might agree with you. This however would of been a year long delay. It would have been a black eye for Perry. That was always the goal here. Perry handled it marvelously like he has most things in his political career. He ignored it. He made no grand statements and let the guy be put down without issue.

The divdiing line between most "liberals" and blue dog dems/moderate republicans is the schism between academic theory and actual process. The element of corruptions and evil intent in humans is highly underestimated by most so called "liberals."
Click to expand...

Are you saying this was all an elaborate scheme to undermine the Texas governor? Or an elaborate scheme to spare the life of a murderer and rapist? Because that seems like a stretch to me.
 
#131
#131
IPorange said:
Are you saying this was all an elaborate scheme to undermine the Texas governor? Or an elaborate scheme to spare the life of a murderer and rapist? Because that seems like a stretch to me.
Click to expand...

It was most certainly a scheme to undermine Perry. No one involved in this Obama, Mexico or the UN gives a S..t about the person put down. This was not about a treaty. This was about making Perry look bad and Texas look bad. And it was a failed attempt.
 
#132
#132
(1) As I understand it that they didn't deny the man his rights, they just didn't inform him. This is a gray area so I am not going to worry too much about the result.

(2) International treaties don't trump US law, they are in effect US law. We can't violate the terms of treaties. We have to instill confidence around the world. There are no easy answers when it comes to this question, but many of you act as if this is black and white. It's not. To me it's a sign that our country is much too big, and much too complicated.
 
#133
#133
nbakerld said:
(2) International treaties don't trump US law, they are in effect US law. We can't violate the terms of treaties. We have to instill confidence around the world. There are no easy answers when it comes to this question, but many of you act as if this is black and white. It's not. To me it's a sign that our country is much too big, and much too complicated.
Click to expand...

they become US law immediately upon signing?
 
#134
#134
utvolpj said:
they become US law immediately upon signing?
Click to expand...

"In effect" it's law. If individual Americans violate the terms of foreign policy (Bobby Fischer and the Yugoslavian embargo is an example), they are held accountable. I don't know why it would be any different for a state violating a US treaty. One of the only legitimate purposes of the federal government is to handle our foreign diplomacy.
 
Last edited:
#135
#135
Constitutional Provisions

Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." These few words are the cornerstone to a major part of our system of divided powers, checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Status as Law

By virtue of the Constitution's supremacy clause (Article VI, clause 2) a treaty that is concluded compatibly with applicable constitutional requirements may have status as the "supreme law of the land," along with federal statutes and the Constitution itself. A treaty does not become effective as U.S. domestic law automatically, however, upon its entry into force on the international level. Instead, this occurs only where the instrument is "self-executing" and operates without any necessity for implementing legislation.

When the Constitution created an executive branch and a president of the United States, it gave him no unchecked or unconditional powers. The Constitution made treatymaking a concurrent power. The United States Senate has carefully guarded its share of this power for two hundred years.

The vast majority of treaties have been ratified by the Senate. Since 1789, only twenty-one treaties have been rejected by the full Senate.
Click to expand...

And as I understand it this one was not ratified or violated.
 
#136
#136
I think what IP is trying to say is that if we #$&*$@# sign something, we should probably follow the rules. Calling him a liberal for being logical is probably the opposite of your intentions.
 
#140
#140
KiffinKiller said:
Fortunately? I we don't want to follow the rules on treaties we shouldn't sign them, imo. You disagree?
Click to expand...

the President or person signing could have different views than the rest of the American public. Checks and balances unless you want the Pres to have complete ability to create laws
 
#141
#141
utvolpj said:
the President or person signing could have different views than the rest of the American public. Checks and balances unless you want the Pres to have complete ability to create laws
Click to expand...

Then maybe the way treaties get signed should change.

In this specific instance, though, we've hurt ourselves abroad over a random ******* getting an extra 6 months.
 
#144
#144
IPorange said:
Then maybe the way treaties get signed should change.

In this specific instance, though, we've hurt ourselves abroad over a random ******* getting an extra 6 months.
Click to expand...

I still don't agree with the US being hurt but not getting into that again. We've both stated our thoughts

changing the way treaties get signed might help but how would that happen? It would still need to go through Congress at some point so we do it before or after signing.
 
#145
#145
utvolpj said:
I still don't agree with the US being hurt but not getting into that again. We've both stated our thoughts

changing the way treaties get signed might help but how would that happen? It would still need to go through Congress at some point so we do it before or after signing.
Click to expand...

You do it before.
 
#146
#146
You don't sign treaties with the hope that we might adhere to them - at least imo. IP is correct here. If our system isn't going to work under the treaty - we don't sign it. Simple.
 
#147
#147
KiffinKiller said:
You don't sign treaties with the hope that we might adhere to them - at least imo. IP is correct here. If our system isn't going to work under the treaty - we don't sign it. Simple.
Click to expand...


Texas didn't sign the treaty, nor has said treaty ever been ratified. So why is Texas catching the heat?
 
#148
#148
Vol_4_Life said:
Texas didn't sign the treaty, nor has said treaty ever been ratified. So why is Texas catching the heat?
Click to expand...

I think we're pointing out that the system is broken, mostly.

But I have been saying (repeatedly, I'm about to just give up) that there really isn't a good REASON for Texas not to have just given him a token call before frying him. It was a done deal anyway. Giving him the call doesn't mean overturning his conviction or altering his sentence or even letting him have another appeal if he's already exhausted them.
 
#149
#149
Vol_4_Life said:
Texas didn't sign the treaty, nor has said treaty ever been ratified. So why is Texas catching the heat?
Click to expand...

Oh **** rly? I was under the impression that all states sign treaties individually...

my point is - we shouldn't sign treaties we aren't going to keep. I don't care what state it is - if there is one state that won't adhere to it - we don't sign it...simple.
 
#150
#150
KiffinKiller said:
Oh **** rly? I was under the impression that all states sign treaties individually...

my point is - we shouldn't sign treaties we aren't going to keep. I don't care what state it is - if there is one state that won't adhere to it - we don't sign it...simple.
Click to expand...

yet not the law in this country.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top