The United States’s obligation under the UN Charter is to “undertake to comply” with ICJ decisions. This suggests that our obligations under the treaty are to pass subsequent legislation that implements the ICJ ruling domestically. Who’s job is it to pass legislation? Congress…and they did nothing. Congress’s inaction does not diminish international obligations that were in place via the charter (which the Supreme Court acknowledged may still exist), it is just that Congressional action is required in order to create an obligation on the States. It is an 10th Amendment issue and a Supremacy Clause issue. If there is no Federal law in place to preempt the state law, then the state law wins.

Additionally, The President was deemed unable to direct Texas to comply with the ICJ ruling because such an act is legislative in nature and is beyond the power of the executive. Under other circumstances, if Bush had engaged in a behavior that was the exclusive realm of Congress, you would be throwing a fit, so why not here?

What the Supreme Court did in this case was put a check on the President’s power to create international obligations unilaterally. This is entirely consistent with the Constitution and a proposition that, under different circumstances, you would probably agree with.

And know that the ICJ only required that the Texas court only look at whether there Medellin had been prejudiced at all by not being notified of his consular rights. Aside from the fact that his counsel should have been aware of his consular rights and raised the objections in a timely manner (the issue was that they didn’t raise the objection until after trial–the point at which such objections are procedurally waived), his case wasn’t prejudiced. Medellin was NOT denied consular access, he was never notified of his right to consular access by the arresting officers but could have raised this at any time and been granted consular access. Also note that the ICJ was not the one to review Medellin’s case for prejudice, they simply directed the Texas court to do so. The article suggests that the ICJ was to undertake such review.

For the Supreme Court to have ruled in a manner other than they did would have been inconsistent with the Constitution and inconsistent with their responsibilities as justices. Our obligations under the UN Charter are only such that don’t conflict with the Constitution–and the same can be said about the obligations under the Charter for every other party that is a signatory.

I am afraid that America is painting it’s own demise and flirting with the second foot coming down, the first being 911.

I am sorry that Americans are not happy with life and are struggling.