Obama calls for halt to Texas execution

[freeatlast]

As this current administration continues to ramp up its political strength to turn this nation into a socialist state run by the federal government and open the borders to crime ridden individuals the people set on their hands and watch as their freedoms to run their own states is turned over to international law while we lose our Sovereignty....
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7636361.html

 

[Robert Snow]

From the article:

The federal government rarely intervenes in state death penalty cases. The thrust of the administration's legal argument deals with the government's international treaty obligations, not Leal's guilt or innocence, or even whether he should ultimately be executed.

 

[mandym]

The thrust of the administration's legal argument deals with the government's international treaty obligations,

The International Treaty can take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[carpro]

A "treaty" that protects murderers isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[Gina B]

Think about this folks. Whether intentional or not, this is great!

If the President hadn't done this, most likely I and many others would have remained ignorant of the crime.

The convicted man is not a citizen. I do not know his legal status in the United States. Whatever it is, this will cast a lot of light on people who come to our country from elsewhere and commit heinous crimes. This will put more attention on immigration law and border protection, which certainly needs more stringent regulation.

What is being done is proper procedure. If this was one of our guys in another country, we'd be up in arms if correct procedure wasn't followed, or at least I hope so!

There can be no bad outcome from this unless the Mexican government fails to handle this properly. They will be watched carefully and if they do great, that means a more peaceful outcome all around. If they fail, they only stress to American citizens that we need to fight for stronger regulations to help keep us safe from crimes committed by foreigners. We have enough criminal citizens to deal with already. The time, expense and insult of having to have our people molested by foreigners and go through the justice system is downright outrageous.

 

[freeatlast]

Think about this folks. Whether intentional or not, this is great!

If the President hadn't done this, most likely I and many others would have remained ignorant of the crime.

The convicted man is not a citizen. I do not know his legal status in the United States. Whatever it is, this will cast a lot of light on people who come to our country from elsewhere and commit heinous crimes. This will put more attention on immigration law and border protection, which certainly needs more stringent regulation.

What is being done is proper procedure. If this was one of our guys in another country, we'd be up in arms if correct procedure wasn't followed, or at least I hope so!

There can be no bad outcome from this unless the Mexican government fails to handle this properly. They will be watched carefully and if they do great, that means a more peaceful outcome all around. If they fail, they only stress to American citizens that we need to fight for stronger regulations to help keep us safe from crimes committed by foreigners. We have enough criminal citizens to deal with already. The time, expense and insult of having to have our people molested by foreigners and go through the justice system is downright outrageous.

No this is not good. Proper procedure was followed. What would be Good would be for the president to remain silent. Your position is how we lose our sovereignty and rights of the people. This is a state issue alone and the sentence needs to be carried out.

 

[Gina B]

But freeatlast, the state isn't free from the obligations that come with dealing with international treaties.

 

[freeatlast]

But freeatlast, the state isn't free from the obligations that come with dealing with international treaties.

But Gina, this is where you are wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the state at the time, saying the president had no unilateral authority to force the state to comply with international treaties, absent some specific congressional legislation.
To do so, said Chief Justice John Roberts, would violate state sovereignty. He said the International Court of Justice's ruling "is not domestic law."
"While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it."
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/03/texas.death.row/

 

[Gina B]

I wasn't aware of that.

Yet there must be more, as President Bush was the first President to make this request.

What you posted blamed the current administration. Now I read and see the former and current both asked the same.

Something's gotta be valid about it and more to it than we're getting in the news if two vastly different administrations have both done the same thing with the same case.

Whatever the case, I was pretty surprised they want all the hearings and such held again. Why not just give him the contact he didn't have, then give the Mexican officials all the details of the case, including transcripts and let it go from there?

I never realized until I read the full story that a state has the power (even if it's really unwise to use) to ignore international treaties.

 

[freeatlast]

I wasn't aware of that.

Yet there must be more, as President Bush was the first President to make this request.

What you posted blamed the current administration. Now I read and see the former and current both asked the same.

Something's gotta be valid about it and more to it than we're getting in the news if two vastly different administrations have both done the same thing with the same case.

Whatever the case, I was pretty surprised they want all the hearings and such held again. Why not just give him the contact he didn't have, then give the Mexican officials all the details of the case, including transcripts and let it go from there?

I never realized until I read the full story that a state has the power (even if it's really unwise to use) to ignore international treaties.

Yes President Bush did make this same request for another Mexican who was a murderer and he too was shot down and the murderer put to death.
The reason that we are not going to comply with the Presidents request is because we are a sovereign state that has already went through our political process in the courts to find this man guilty by the will of the people.
In other words we have no intention of following the advice of those who seek to turn us into a one world government. The process we have is ours voted on by the people of this state to act as a sovereign state as we see fit. So we the people are telling President Obama, just like we told President Bush, to take a flying leap.

As to giving the Mexican authorities all the transcripts no one is withholding them from them. They can go through the legal system and pay to have them just like anyone else and they can hire lawyers to go through the appeal process if they want, but what they want is for us to be forced by the Federal government to comply with Mexican and or international law which we reject. By the way the cost of those transcripts is 50 to 100 thousand dollars, but that it what it would cost you or me if it was our own trial so there is nothing unfair here in this at all. If the Mexican government was and is so concerned about this man why did they not supply monetary funds and get him a team of lawyers to fight his case. However that is not what they are after. The know he is guilty and the proceedings were fair. They are not seeking justice but rather for us to be under Mexican and international law.
So this has nothing to do with what is right or wrong in regards to this case as this man received a fair trial and many fair appeals. This is about the United States, and Texas in this case, bowing to other governments and turning from being a free sovereign people to becoming a people that is dictated by other governments. Again they can take a flying leap!
:thumbs:

 

[Gina B]

Okay, thanks for being patient and taking the time to explain it. I get it now.

 

[freeatlast]

Okay, thanks for being patient and taking the time to explain it. I get it now.

No problem. The issue is becoming a war of freedom of the people to govern themselves or be dictated to by a world council with the federal government leaning away from the peoples right to govern themselves. While there is no question in my mind the people will lose the battle in the coming months or perhaps years right now we have told them to take a hike putting off the bloodshed, that will come, of our own people by our own military.