The Court accused the President of attempting to unilaterally converting a non-self-executing treaty into a self-executing one." The government had also claimed that the Memorandum was an exercise of the President's authority to resolve international claims under his executive authority. The Court recognized that this was a long-standing practice, but prior uses of executive authority to settle international disputes had occurred in narrow circumstances, and did not involve the complete setting aside of state law, as the Medellin sought.
In the Medellin v. Texas oral argument, Justice Scalia says, "Usually when we have treaties that are not self-enforcing, the judgment of whether that international law obligation shall be made domestic law is a judgment for the Congress. Congress passes a law to enforce the treaty. " the United States must abide by its international commitments if it expects other nations to do so. The U.S. tendency to ignore ICJ decisions is dangerous on many levels: It erodes our reputation as a reliable treaty partner and undermines the effectiveness of international mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of disputes. It could also have a harmful impact on the millions of U.S. citizens who travel, live or work abroad. Under the Vienna Convention, Medellin could have used the laws at the right time, but missed the opportunity. It was up to Medellin and others to raise the issue of their legal rights under Vienna. Their failure to use these rights in the theater of the first trial excluded their use later on.
The substance...
Arizona, which gave criminal suspects the famous speech upon arrest. Medellin v. Texas is like an international Miranda v. Arizona. If a suspect is not aware of his or her consular rights, should the United States try the suspect like an American, or provide more information about citizenship pro-actively? This problem takes along with it the treatment of foreign national criminals as citizens. Should we append another sentence to the Miranda rights, such as "if you are a foreign national, you have the right to advice from your consulate?" As the United States borders welcome immigrants from all over the world, its executive branch should be ready for these immigrants to commit crimes. However, as with the recent controversial law SB 1070 in Arizona, the state is often the quicker mover in directing national immigration policy. The Supreme Court's decision to not stall Medillin's execution set an example of withholding "bench legislation" and letting the states decide how to enforce national immigration policy.
Justice Roberts uses the example of non-self-executable UN treaties, which do require a passage of legislation, signed by the President, giving it effect. The Supreme Court further held that the responsibility for transforming an international obligation arising from a non-self-executing treaty into domestic law falls to Congress. For the Vienna Convention to come into effect in the future, this Senate hearing will have to convince lawmakers to find ways to solve the complex risks of crimes done by immigrants.
