In your own view did GW exceed his authority, not only on this issue which was ruled against him, but at other times? War? Privacy? Etc...


Supreme Court rules Bush exceeded his powers - Los Angeles Times


Supreme Court rules Bush exceeded his powers

Saying he does not have 'unilateral authority' to force states to comply with an international treaty, justices vote 6-3 to reject presidential order to reopen cases of foreign nationals.

By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

March 26, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court rebuffed President Bush on Tuesday for exceeding his powers under the law, ruling he does not have the "unilateral authority" to force state officials to comply with an international treaty.

The Constitution gives the president the power "to execute the laws, not make them," said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Unless Congress passes a law to enforce a treaty, the president usually cannot do it on his own, he said.

The 6-3 decision was a rare defeat for Bush in the courts, and it came in an unusual case that combined international law, foreign treaties and the fate of foreign nationals condemned to die in Texas, California and several other states.

In a surprise move three years ago, Bush intervened on the side of the Mexican government and said Texas prosecutors should reopen the cases of Jose Medellin, a Houston murderer, and several others serving death sentences. Bush cited the Vienna Convention, which obliges signing countries to notify each other when one of their citizens is arrested and charged with a serious crime. Mexico said American prosecutors failed repeatedly to give notice when Mexican natives were charged with capital crimes.

In rejecting Bush's order Tuesday, the high court, led by its conservatives, took the opportunity to make a strong statement on the limits of presidential power.

Roberts cited the "first principles" of America's Constitution. "The president's authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself," Roberts said. "[G]iven the absence of congressional legislation . . . the non-self- executing treaties at issue here did not expressly or impliedly vest the president with the unilateral authority to make them self-executing.

"It should not be surprising," Roberts added, "that our Constitution does not contemplate vesting such power in the Executive alone."

The decision upholds Texas prosecutors and judges who refused to reopen the cases of the Mexican nationals on death row there. By implication, it also blocks a challenge on behalf of several dozen Mexican natives who are serving death sentences in California.

The three dissenters, led by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, took the view that treaties are part of American law once they are ratified by the Senate.

At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the decision was a defeat, but on a narrow issue. "We're disappointed with the decision, but we're going to accept it, and we're going to be reviewing it in regards to the impacts that it may have," she said.

Since 2001, Bush has claimed the power to run the war on terrorism without interference from Congress or the courts. He and his White House lawyers have said his powers as commander in chief of the armed forces allow him to act unilaterally to protect the nation's security.

Citing this authority, he ordered the military to imprison "enemy combatants" without charges or hearings, and he told the National Security Agency to intercept international phone calls from suspected terrorists without seeking judicial warrants. He also has claimed the power to order harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists without oversight from Congress or the courts.

Civil libertarians have gone to court repeatedly to challenge Bush's actions, but they have won few clear victories.

Four years ago, the high court said war did not give the president a "blank check," but the justices stopped well short of forcing major changes at the military's prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another challenge to that prison is pending before the court.

Pepperdine law professor Douglas W. Kmiec said Tuesday's opinion in Medellin vs. Texas may be "an epitaph for an administration that has sought to deploy all sorts of means of embellishing presidential authority." Bush's order was "clearly an executive overreach," said Kmiec, a former Reagan administration lawyer, and he called Roberts' opinion "a strong reaffirmation of the role of Congress in treaty making."

But liberal advocates faulted the court for undercutting an international treaty.

"The most disturbing aspect of this case is that Chief Justice Roberts is signaling that the United States can simply ignore its obligations under international treaties," said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way. "It's a ruling that will further erode our standing in the world."

Donald Donovan, a New York lawyer who represented Medellin, said the court should have stood behind Bush's effort to enforce U.S. legal commitments. "Having given its word, the United States should have kept its word," he said.

Mexico does not have the death penalty, and its officials said they could supply lawyers for those who were charged with capital crimes in the United States. When Mexico sued over the issue, the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruled in 2004 that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention. Its ruling named 51 Mexican nationals.

It was unclear how that ruling could be enforced. Bush, a former Texas governor, told Texas officials that they had to abide by the ruling of the International Court. He said he did so "pursuant to the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Texas prosecutors balked and decided to fight Bush in court. In Tuesday's opinion, Roberts concluded first that the Vienna Convention is not "binding federal law," since Congress had not passed a law to enforce it. And in such cases, the president had no authority to force state or local officials to comply with the treaty or the ruling of the International Court.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts' opinion. And Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the result, saying the treaty at issue did not have the force of law in this country.

tomder55

The issue was not whether States should follow treaties or whether POTUS has the authority to enforce those treaties ;he does. This issue was if the State had to comply with a ruling from the World Court (despite the spin the LA Slimes puts on the ruling) .

Justice Robers said“[N]ot all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in the United States courts,” ....“the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by ‘many of our most fundamental constitutional protections,’” was never a consideration of those who negotiated the UN Charter -- the treaty that created the ICJ.

SCOTUS correctly categorizes this and other verdicts by the world court as not orders from a binding court , but rather, as diplomatic judgments to be taken under advisement .
Bush can be criticized here for "caving to the demands of the International Community opinion" (something that I thought his opposition wanted more of from him ). In fact I am sure it was domestic pressure for him to act more internationally that led him to cave on this matter. So he made a mistake by caving in to the demands of the global elites instead . So now he is to be criticized for doing the very same thing his critics complain he doesn't do enough.
Thankfully one of the things Bush has done right is to appoint SCOTUS judges who understand that the laws of the land and our sovereignty are not subject to the approval of the Hague Court.

BABRAM

Tom-

Thanks for responding. I'm really not sure why in this case Bush singled Medellin out, except just to see if it was possible. I have not seen the history of the Medellin case other than the acknowledgment that he was found guilty of murder. I don't doubt that judges are influenced by politicking, but the count of the educated judges rule was 6 to 3. Overall, not just this case (or issue) it's also become painfully obvious that Dubya has pushed the envelope of office during his two terms doing some politicking himself. According to the article even a former Reagan's admin lawyer sees this as another attempt for Bush to "embellish presidential authority." But likewise I think the six judges skated the responsibility to international treaties upon technicalities. While their reasoning may be sound on the surface "stemming from Congress," I wonder what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot with our expectation being other countries to abide fully by a treaty. My guess is that the US government then would certainly want it upheld. I think what complicates the matter is that we have a president that needs the courts to keep him within the check and balances of our own system and not go freelancing as judge and jury, but yet keep trust among the international communities. I think they could resolve this by running these adventures through Congress first. That's just my view, I see both sides of this.

speechlesstx

Thanks tom, all I got in my paper was the spin. That's Bush, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Yeah, he may have exceeded his authority here but was he trying to "redefine or push the limits?" Personally, I think he bowed to pressure and tried to appease Mexico and the ICJ. His decision to issue this 'memorandum' was a reversal of his previous position and based on the "supremacy clause."



I would have thought though that this was something the Bush critics would applaud, standing up to his former state and giving some illegal aliens another chance to avoid the death penalty and abiding by the international court decision. The LA Times, which spun this story by the way, "thinks the Supreme Court erred by not giving Jose Medellin, a Mexican national on death row in Texas, another day in court." I think SCOTUS was right, but I don't think this was an attempt at a power grab by Bush.

BABRAM

Spin? Not "yeah" he may have exceed his authority, but according to the ruling of six judges it would been exceeding his authority. They basically gave the road map of how to clear these things in the future. I don't know it is should be applauded. The thing is that GW claims having invested powers, and then when examined, we find out that's not written in stone, but only as he alludes to with such authority. Again...what complicates the matter is that we have a president that needs the courts to keep him within the check and balances of our own system and not go freelancing as judge and jury, but yet keep trust among the international communities.

tomder55

Yes Steve ;when the world court made their decision Bush decided to withdraw from that provision of the treaty . But he also felt that since the provisions were in effect prior to his decision that we were bound to them .

Bobby makes a good case about reciprocity but in no way do I See this as an attempt of an executive power grab.

speechlesstx

Bobby, the "Yeah, he may have exceeded his authority" was juxtaposed with "but was he trying to "redefine or push the limits?" I didn't excuse it, I'm just asking if it was "an attempt at a power grab" which is how this story is being presented. I don't think it was, but even if it were this is one power grab many on the left applauded.

As I showed, the paper you cited thinks SCOTUS was wrong. People for the American Way thinks it was wrong as cited in the story, "It's a ruling that will further erode our standing in the world." I just find it telling that the guy that's been criticized so many times for "exceeding his authority" was expected to exceed his authority by his critics in this case, and when he gets rebuffed by the Supremes the very paper that disagrees with the decision made sure it sounded like he got spanked anyway.

As for having a president "that needs the courts to keep him within the check and balances of our own system," you act as if they've never held presidents in check before. That is part of their job and in this case they did it right.

speechlesstx

True, he did withdraw from that portion but as the NY Times reported, "Initially, the Bush administration described Mexico’s suit as “an unjustified, unwise and ultimately unacceptable intrusion in the United States criminal justice system."

Something changed his mind and it had to be a variety of factors. I found a column on the subject in the Lone Star Times that not only supports the reciprocity factor but supports our view that it was no power grab.


The column is worth a read.

tomder55

That doesn't sound like the Bush narrative his opposition has concocted .


I suspect it has alot to do with his special relationship with the Mexican leadership . I wonder if he would show the same consideration to Iran ,Venezuela ,or the NORKS ?

BABRAM

That headliner in the post was my take on the issue. Bush was exploring the possibilities. It's not his first time to have done such. The LA Times piece was presenting the case as ruled upon as seen consequense from various views.




I don't see that from this one inference when the story cites several different takes. "People for the American Way" are just one example of the views cited in the article. BTW I don't know that the "American Way" encompasses or represents everyone, anymore than the GOP. I see the point of both sides and reasoning for it. Like I said now the road map has been laid out thanks to six judges. I don't think they were necessarily against Bush, just how he went about it.




Not on this issue. That's why the courts we're involved and we had the final ruling.