pageok
pageok
pageok
Medellin v. Texas:
Over at SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston has a report on the fascinating oral argument this morning in Medellin v. Texas. The case is extremely interesting and the advocates are top notch (Paul Clement and Ted Cruz), so it sounds like it was quite an argument. The oral argument transcript has not been posted as of 3:20 east coast time, but when it's up you will be able to click here to download it.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Medellin and the Second Amendment:
  2. Medellin v. Texas:
GV_:
Given that the court in the not so distant past has seemed to give the President a free hand in foreign policy matters such as this (see, e.g., Garamendi), I'll be interested to see what limits they put on the President's power here.
10.10.2007 5:54pm
Mark P. (mail):
Thanks for the link. Cruz did a particularly good job.
10.10.2007 6:09pm
Houston Lawyer:
Interesting point of whether illegal aliens actually have more rights than citizens.
10.10.2007 6:40pm
GV_:
Okay, I'm dumb and should not have commented on the case until I read the briefing instead of relying on news reports. My first comment makes no sense.
10.10.2007 7:28pm
Kazinski:
Interesting point of whether the World Court is superior to the Supreme Court. I'd say no.

I'd also say that (and I don't think any court has ever taken my position) when the President signs a treaty and the Senate ratifies it, it only becomes the law of the land insofar that the treaty doesn't violate the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution. I think that the treaty in question in Medellin does violate the 10th amendment.

Q. When does the President have the authority to order State Courts around?
A. When the World Court says he can.

That answer does not comport with my view of the constitution and the separation of powers.
10.10.2007 7:55pm
allwrits (mail):
This, perhaps &imho, the most important case potentially in several. It is a federalism case, presidential powers case, international relations matter, all wrapped around a capital case. It should be interesting to see how the plurality rules.
10.10.2007 8:27pm
Thinking Man (mail):
Houston Lawyer - that's an ignorant comment. Ignorant in that it ignores the fact that you too (assuming you're a citizen) have the right to contact your consular officials should you be arrested in a foreign country. So you have the same rights as the immigrant you're referring to, except of course, Medellin was denied his right to contact the Medellin consulate. Also, Medellin is a legal immigrant, so your assumption is incorrect. Do you read the cases, or do you just comment on them?
10.11.2007 6:40pm
Thinking Man (mail):
Strike that - I meant "legal resident," not "legal immigrant," in the next-to-last sentence of my previous post.
10.11.2007 7:06pm