Reply #108: the supreme court disagrees with you

[onenote]

You (and even I) might not agree with the SCOTUS 6-3 decision in Medellin v. Texas isued in March 2008, but its conclusion is quite clear: "This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that—while they constitute international law commitments—do not by themselves function as binding federal law. The distinction was well explained by Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2Pet. 253, 315 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Percheman, 7Pet. 51 (1833), which held that a treaty is “equivalent to an act of the legislature,” and hence self-executing, when it “operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision.” Foster, supra, at 314. When, in contrast, “ stipulations are not self-executing they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect.” Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888) . 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.” Igarta-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C. J.).2 "

Unfortunately, the link in your prior post doesn't work, but assuming that your point is that existing law already covered the provisions of the Convention, you should point to those provisions of domestic law as the source of the domestic law violation that Obama allegedly has committed. Indeed, if there are such existing domestic law provisions, the treaty is essentially irrelevant to your argument.