The Supreme Court justices, by a 6-3 vote, stated that President Bush "overstepped his authority" when he tried to order Texas to reopen the case of a Mexican man on death row for rape and murder.

 

The International Court of Justice had ordered the U.S. administration to tell states to review cases of 51 Mexican nationals who were not told of the right to contact their embassy when they were arrested. In 2004, the Mexican government had appealed to the international court on behalf of its citizens on death row in the United States.

In a 1969 treaty the United States had agreed to that right, in fact insisting on it, so that U.S. citizens abroad could call on their embassies if arrested in a foreign country.

The international court ruled that the United States had violated its treaty obligations and ordered the U.S. to reconsider the death sentences. President Bush then withdrew from the part of the treaty subjecting the United States to the international court's jurisdiction. However, Bush ordered the state courts to review the cases of those 51 death row inmates. Texas refused, claiming that the president's unilateral assertion of power was unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution in Article VI reads: "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." The U.S. Senate must ratify a treaty with a two-thirds vote to make the treaty binding.

Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled that treaties are binding only if the treaty explicitly says so or if there is legislation to make that clear. In the past many treaties have been considered "self-executing," meaning that their provisions are automatically binding. But not all treaties fall into this category. The Supreme Court's ruling now requires that treaties explicitly say they are self-executing or have accompanying legislation that says so.

"Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that because the treaty did not explicitly say its provisions were binding, and because there was no legislation to make the treaty binding, the president could not on his own force the states to comply." This ruling means the president's executive power does not give him the authority to intervene in these particular state criminal cases.

In the meantime many U.S. diplomats are dismayed, claiming the ruling will cause havoc in diplomatic circles.

However, Charles Cooper, a former Reagan administration official, said Bush had gone too far. "The notion that the president can himself unilaterally determine that it shall be a binding domestic law, even to the point of preempting state laws dealing with criminal procedure, is a breathtaking proposition, and that's what the court rejected," he said.

This ruling helps reverse the trend to greater executive power and puts control back into the hands of the legislators. The growing trend for federal bureaucrats to impose regulations, without legislative assent, is one that needs to be stopped.