The essential rationale for the Court's decision is that some treaties are "self-executing" and some are not. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was found to be in the latter category. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. According to the Majority Opinion,
In sum, while treaties "may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be 'self-executing' and is ratified on these terms." Igartúa-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C.J.).(emphasis added)The Medellín Court held that the Vienna Convention was not self executing for several reasons, including its wording, its legislative history, and the circumstances surrounding its ratification. It also found that the Congress had passed no legislation implementing the power of an ICJ decision to require a State court to violate its own procedural rules concerning when matters can be raised (here, the failure to advise Medellín of his right to consult with a legal representative of Mexico had been raised long after his conviction had been upheld on appeal on 16 May 1997.
There having been no implementing legislation, President Bush took it upon himself to do the work of the Congress in his 28 February 2005 directive. The meat of the Court's decision concerns whether the President had the power to do so. The Court held that he did not.
Once a treaty is ratified without provisions clearly according it domestic effect, . . . whether the treaty will ever have such effect is governed by the fundamental constitutional principle that '[t]he power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the President.' Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557, 591 (2006), (quoting Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 139 (1866) (opinion of Chase, C.J.)); see U.S. Const., Art. I, §1 ('All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States'). As already noted, the terms of a non-self-executing treaty can become domestic law only in the same way as any other law--through passage of legislation by both Houses of Congress, combined with either the President's signature or a congressional override of a Presidential veto. See Art. I, §7. Indeed, 'the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.' Youngstown, 343 U.S.at 587.Mr. Justice Stevens, concurring in the judgment of the Court that the treaty was not self-executing and that the President lacked the authority to execute it, opined that the Congress really should pass legislation doing so. Whether it should, or should not, do so is beyond the scope of this article.
Article comments
1 - Ken Mills
As I understand it, Medellin actually had been in Texas since he was 3 years old, and never informed officials that he was not a citizen until well after he was convicted of murder.Futhermore, he confessed to the murder...his guilt or innocense has never been an issue...so, how could notifying the Mexican Consulate have been of any help? It all was a delaying tactic...Texans absolutely do not like and will not stand to be bullied by anyone and that includes our former Governor GWB or the World Court...Texans make their own laws using their own conscience as a guide and execute those laws....and, I disagree with anyone who tries to inferfere...The excessively brutal and inhuman facts of the rape, torture, and murder of 2 young, innocent beautiful daughters, sisters, granddaughers, friends of others warranted and justified the execution of the murdering monster...I only wish he could be revived and executed again, and again, ang again...maybe after being revived and executed several times, the scumbag would only then just begin to understand the hurt and misery he has brought to a whole lot of folk that didn't deserve it.
2 - Arch Conservative
Good for Texas.
The only thing that Texas did wrong in this case and also in the ase of the Honduran man they executed last week was fail to offer the executions as live pay per view events on univision and telemundo.
Don't mess with Texas!
3 - Dan Miller
Ken,
I agree that he did not inform anyone that he was a Mexican National until post-conviction. As I understand the situation, however, the authorities were required to advise him of his right to seek assistance from Mexico's legal representative.
The only way for the authorities to do that, without engaging in the sin of profiling, would have been (and would still be) to advise everyone to the following effect upon arrest: Sir (or Madam or whatever), in the event that you are not a Citizen of the United States, you are entitled to contact the legal representative of your country, whatever that may be.
Not that it would do anyone in Mr. Medellin's circumstances much good, but it would have spared Texas the cost of litigation and permitted Mr. Medellin's earlier execution. It would also have spared the U.S. some minor embarrassment and given the Washington Post a bit of editorial space in which to pontificate on something different.
Dan