Mexico has been agitating with the World Court to force the United States to vacate (or at least revisit) the convictions of 51 Mexican nationals now on death row because they claim that these murderers were not alerted to their right to seek consular assistance before they went into the American court systems.
Naturally, the ICJ happily complied with Mexico's request and demanded that the U.S. comply with the World Court decision. Bush made an unfortunate decision in 2005 to ask the various states to comply with the ICJ, but the issue has since been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Fortunately, just this month the SCOTUS said that our courts are not bound by the ICJ rulings.
Of course, Reuters seems to imagine that the U.S. now stands against the rule of law because we have told the ICJ to take a hike. The Reuters report is filled with the stern scolding of a U.S. that "violated" international law and how the U.S. is "in breach of its international obligations."
Under a section helpfully titled "RULE OF LAW," Reuters informs us that all the rules and claims that the ICJ is preeminent are unquestionable.
The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is responsible for handling disputes between U.N. member states. Its rulings -- which often take years -- are binding and not subject to appeal.
Reuters also quotes Gomez-Robledo, Mexican under-secretary for multilateral affairs and human rights, to the effect that the U.S. is working against the "rule of law."
But he appealed to the United States to respect international law. "The rule of law is the foundation stone on which the United States was built," he said.
Let me disabuse both Reuters and the Mexicans that the U.S. is working against the rule of law, here. You see, the United States is not overarchingly bound by the ICJ. We are, however, bound by the Constitution of the United States first, foremost and solely. And, as it turns out, we followed our rule of law by taking the cases of these criminal aliens to the highest court and that court happened to rule against the ICJ.
There you have it, the proper rule of law concept followed to a "T." The ICJ lost. Too bad, so sad.
In his desire to look all cute and cuddly to the Europeans, President Bush overstepped his boundaries by trying to order the various state courts to revisit the sentences of these 51 murdering criminal aliens. The SCOTUS was right, Bush should have stayed out of it.
But there can be no question that the issue has been rightfully and legitimately settled duly following the rule of law. Reuters is wrong to flavor their article as if the U.S. has somehow violated the rule of law, that it is in the wrong for following its own duly constituted laws.
Unsurprisingly, no where in the story can you see Reuters admitting that the U.S. is governed by its own Constitution and the entire story is framed in the language and assumptions that the ICJ is the rightful arbiter of what the U.S. should do with its system of justice.
In any case, the day the U.S. allows itself to be ruled from the Hague and this so-called World Court, we truly will have arrived at a day when we've given up on the rule of law. For at that time we will have allowed ourselves to be ruled by the arbitrary rules of Europeans, rules written specifically to undermine American jurisprudence.
