Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) Supreme Court Decision
Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) that "forcible abduction of a foreign national does not prohibit his trial in a U.S. Court" dealt a body blow to international law, the implications of which are still being felt. Small wonder, therefore, that the Court's majority (6-3) decision was considered unjust by international human rights organizations and even by three of Supreme Court's own judges, led by Justice Stevens, who dissented strongly. I agree with Judge Steven's dissenting opinion for the reasons explained in this essay.
Strange Logic:
As pointed out by Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion, allowing kidnapping of people from the territory of a foreign country, just because there is no express provision disallowing such an act in a treaty, is strange logic. By an extension of this logic every act, whether legal or illegal, moral or immoral, not mentioned in a particular treaty would be deemed allowable. Justice Stevens appropriately records in his dissent whether the Court's majority would also endorse behavior such as torture and execution because they were not explicitly...
And Mexico.
Violation of International Law:
Besides the application of such flawed logic, the majority decision in Alvarez ignored a fundamental principle of international law, i.e., respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent country. Performing acts of sovereignty in another state is a gross violation of international law, whatever the justification. Kidnapping a person from a foreign, friendly country for a suspected crime is doubly condemnable and opens up a Pandora's box of similar illegal acts. Perhaps realizing how wrong the act of kidnapping a foreign national from a sovereign country was, Justice Rehnquist himself noted while delivering the majority opinion of the Court, " ... respondent may be correct that his abduction was "shocking" and in violation of general international law principles ... "
Outcome of Trial Proves the Act Unjust:
Not only was the principle behind the abduction of Alvarez-Machain wrong, the aftermath of the incident, has further underlined the inappropriateness of the act. In his trial in a Los…
Works Cited
"ACLU Joins Landmark International Human Rights Cases Before the U.S. Supreme Court." ACLU Website. March 29, 2004. June 10, 2005. http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=15326&; c=261
'United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) in the U.S. Supreme Court" FindLaw Website. 1992. June 10, 2005. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&; vol=504& invol=655
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, joined. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Blackmun and O'connor, joined.
Supreme Court and Public Opinion The Supreme Court of the United States was established in 1789 as part of the basic three sections of the American governmental system: Executive (President and Staff), Legislative (Congress), and Judicial (Supreme Court System). Each U.S. State also has a supreme court, which is the highest law for interpreting cases that move into that jurisdiction. Essentially, the Supreme Court has the ultimate jurisdiction over all federal
While the decision has hung over states as one national standard, it infringes the essential principles of federalism and separation of powers that are rooted in the country's constitutional system (Silversten, 2011). During the time that the Supreme Court made this ruling, the state of Georgia basically had the same position on punishment for the crime of rape with many states. Actually, very few states permitted the executions or enforcement
Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006) The Case The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau,
Supreme Court cases (Muller V. Oregon) women's right Why it was an issue of national importance The Muller v. Oregon case was among the most crucial Supreme Court cases in the U.S. during the progressive regime. The case held an Oregon law that limited the working days for female wage employees to a maximum of ten hours. In 1908, this case created a precedent to expand access of national activities into the
Supreme Court of Mississippi. CASH DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC. v. James NEELY. Facts In 1973, James Neely started working for Cash Distributing Co., a company that distributed Anheuser-Busch products in several parts of the United States. The company had offices in Columbus, Starkville and Tupelo. During the 1990s, James Neely was heading the Columbus office. By this time, Anheuser-Busch started to look more closely at the way some of its rules were enforced,
Supreme Court Case The Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was an extremely important one, and one which set a significant precedent in the United States that would not be overturned until the Brown v. Board of Education decision in the middle of the 20th century. The former case set the precedent for what was known as the separate but equal doctrine. The principle question considered in this case was