Mexico, who allows hundred of thousands of its "immigrants" to illegally cross over into the United States each year, has shown its "compassionate" side. The Mexican government has appealed to the World Court to "take urgent measures" to get the U.S. to stay all executions of Mexicans on Death Row in American jails.
Amazingly, President Bush had already agreed with the World Court back in 2004. The court, which resides at the Hague in the Netherlands, ruled that the trials some 50 Mexicans on Death Row were in violation of the 1963 Vienna Convention. It was then that Bush did something that was extraordinary for an American president, he not only deferred to a ruling by a World Court but then issued an executive order to the state of Texas demanding they review the case of a Mexican national on Death Row.
The World Court had ruled that because the Mexicans on Death Row had not had access to their country's consular officials that the Death Row convictions must be overturned and then each case reviewed. Bush issued his own Executive Order based on the ruling of the World Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, who, in a majority decision, struck down Bush's executive order and ruled that the Constitution "allows the President to execute the laws, not make them".
The Mexican government now asks the World Court to take "urgent measures" and intercede on behalf of the Mexican nationals on American Death Rows. The World Court, also known as the International Court of Justice, is under the aegis of the United Nations. We weren't sure just what "urgent" measures" the Mexican government was referring to, so we looked up the World Court at its website.
The World Court
Jurisdiction:
The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction). Source - International Court of Justice
The World Court states in its "jurisdiction" section that it gives "advisory" opinions on legal questions. Could a World Court ruling supersede decisions made by United States Courts?
According to the United States Supreme Court, the answer is a resounding "no". The courts, when they struck down Bush's meddling in the cases of the Mexican nationals who were on Death Row, ruled that judgments of the International Court of Justice, as the court is formally known, are not binding on U.S. courts and that Bush's 2005 executive order, that courts in Texas comply anyway does not change that".
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the World Court, nor the "operative part of the United Nations Charter, creates binding law in the absence of implementing legislation from Congress". He also pointed out that Bush did not have the "power to issue a directive that reaches deep into the heart of the state's police powers and compels state courts to reopen final criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws".
Read more of Mexico Demands World Court Intercede in American Judicial System at DBKP.com
Source - McClatchy Washington - Mexico Crime Continues to Surge
Source - Washington Post - Justices Rebuff Bush and World Court
Source - Sign On San Diego - Mexico Asks World Court to stay executions in the U.S.
Image - World Court
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page