**** Important U. S. Supreme Court case argued; President Bush will be vindicated. ****

Here is a release about a United States Supreme Court case you should know about. It has very wide ranging implications for practitioners of International law:

On Wednesday, October 10 the Court heard arguments in the Medellin v. Texas case which presents the following questions:

1. Did the President of the United States act within his constitutional and statutory foreign affairs authority when he determined that the states must comply with the United States' treaty obligation to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the judgment?

2. Are state courts bound by the Constitution to honor the undisputed international obligation of the United States, under treaties duly ratified by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed?

My view: Our U. S. Constitution, in the SUPREMACY CLAUSE of Article V1, makes it CLEAR that "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; AND 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, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWISTANDING".

So anyone who wants to attempt to "weasel" out of the CLEAR mandate is invited to try here.

And I believe the Court will find that NO one can, and President Bush will be vindicated.