Bush "Orders" State Courts
Matthew J. Franck
mfranck at radford.edu
Wed Mar 9 09:43:46 PST 2005
I thank all and sundry for cluing me in on this matter. I thank Douglas
Laycock in particular, as I am inclined to his interpretation below, but my
reaction is relief, not cynicism. Now I can sleep soundly.
Matthew J. Franck
Professor and Chairman
Department of Political Science
P.O. Box 6945
Radford, VA 24142-6945
e-mail mfranck at radford.edu
At 12:13 PM 3/9/2005, you wrote:
>The US brief says that the President's "determin[ation]" is binding under
>the Supremacy Clause and overrides contrary state procedural rules. But
>the determination says none of that. It orders nothing; there is no
>language of command. If it were a judgment, no one could be held in contempt.
>I don't know whether to be cynical or optimistic. The cynical reading is
>that the President has "determined" that state courts are responsible for
>compliance, for the purpose of cutting off all remedies outside state
>courts, and that the President has no intention of doing anything if state
>courts ignore his determination, or if state courts conclude that the US
>brief is also right that the Avena decision creates no enforceable rights,
>or if state courts routinely find that failure to notify the consulate was
>University of Texas Law School
>727 E. Dean Keeton St.
>Austin, TX 78705
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof