They may wear conservative masks. But a President or Congress is radical that intends the effacement of its Constitution or Sovereignty. In 1993, two teenaged girls walking home from school were captured, raped, beaten mercilessly and, even as they plead for their lives, were strangled to death by the illegal alien Jose Ernesto Medellin and his gang. Medellin, engaged at the time in the rites of gang initiation, celebrated rape, torture and murder with his friends. When arrested he blithely confessed.
Displaying no remorse whatsoever, he admitted to gang-raping, both girls, and he described how they pleaded for their lives before he stomped on one girl’s neck and strangled them both with a shoelace and a belt.
Medellin was appointed counsel and a jury found him guilty of murder. While technically a Mexican citizen by birth, Medellin had spent most of his life in the United States. He was given an American education. He speaks English fluently. Four years following his conviction, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that as a Mexican citizen he was entitled— pursuant to the Protocols of the Vienna Convention—to confer with a Mexican consulate following his arrest in a foreign country. (The foreign country he referred to was America). He argued that as he was not accorded this right the jury verdict against him must be set aside.
The Constitutional mandate in criminal trials requires that a defendant object to any perceived violation of his rights or give up that right on appeal. Medellin failed to object at trial and therefore waived the claim he raised to the Supreme Court. Medellin, however, centered his appeal on an unprecedented theory: That the United Nations and its International Court of Justice are superior in sovereignty to the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress and the President of the United States. The International Court of Justice, in its 2004 Avena decision, had asserted frivolously a sovereign jurisdiction superior to the President, the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. It then ordered the United States to reopen the murder convictions and sentences of fifty-one illegal aliens on death row.
Former President George W. Bush would support Medellin’s claim. The night before Mr. Cruz’ oral argument to the Supreme Court, he issued a Memorandum stating that,
“…he had ‘determined’…the United States would ‘discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice in [Avena], by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.”
Medellin argued that the President’s Memorandum, as it is federal law, binds the U.S. Supreme Court, all inferior state courts and Congress itself. In the Memorandum, President Bush ignored the Senate’s sovereign prohibitions against the Vienna Protocols. The Senate, when considering the Protocols, prohibited their use or enforcement in American Courts. While the President predicated the Memorandum on “comity” that is “friendship,” had Medellin prevailed he would have done so by subverting the Constitution, Congress and the doctrine of separation of powers. It is, of course, a patently frivolous notion that the President may, in the name of international friendship, order a state court to rewrite its substantive and procedural law and nullify the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. That he intended to do so constitutes a violation of the Constitutional doctrine of Separation of powers, and an abuse of presidential power.
The Supreme Court, true to its oath, affirmed Medellin’s conviction and struck down a Presidential Memorandum mandating that the American government submit itself to the specious jurisdictional claim of the United Nations and it International Court of Justice. The Supreme Court stated the obvious, that,
Nothing in the text, background, negotiating and drafting history, or practice among signatory nations suggests that the President or Senate intended the improbable result of giving the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by ‘many of our most fundamental constitutional protections.” Emphasis Added.
Congressional and executive attacks on the protections afforded Americans by their Constitution are increasing. The Congress and President, in passing into law the McCain/Feingold Bill, intentionally criminalized the First Amendment right of Americans to free speech. During the years in which McCain/Feingold restrictions on free speech were in force, an American who engaged in political speech in violation of its provisions, was subject to criminal prosecution, fine and imprisonment. That the Congress and President demonstrated a nearly perfect contempt for the First Amendment is obvious from a reading of the plain words of the First Amendment. No one could possibly have misunderstood its words or discovered there, a right to prosecute, fine and imprison an American who speaks his mind.
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5/4 decision just barely struck down a Congressional attempt to begin the abrogation, in bits and pieces, of the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy, writing for the conservative majority, struck down this Constitutionally aberrant species of Congressional and Presidential faithlessness. His, words, cut out of granite, were precisely what Senators McCain, Feingold— and the Democrats and Republicans who voted Yea— needed to hear.
"When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. ... The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves…."political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it… We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers."
The radical left, whether Democrat or Republican, praises the sanctity and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court only so long as the Court serves its ideology or magnifies the power and reach of the welfare state. President O’Bama, after tongue-lashing the Supreme Court for its decision, revealed his ideological harmony with that of the “conservative” Senator John McCain, President Bush, and those “conservatives” who signed the bill into law. Now, President O’Bama and a Congress controlled by Democrats are already seeking ways to subvert the Supreme Court’s holding, and to efface again the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
What is to be done? Raise your voice to scorn those of our leaders faithless to their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. Demand their resignation. Vote them into political exile. Look to those who are your President, Senator and Congressman and watch closely what they say and do—and for the politician who tells you that he is a conservative—find him out, unmask him, see if what he tells you is really true. Be careful though, you may be shocked at the face you see.
 Ted Cruz, Defending U..S. Sovereignty, Separation of powers, and Federalism in Medellin v. Texas. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol.33, Number 1, Winter, 2010. “Mr. Cruz served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2003-2008. He has argued eight cases before the United States Supreme Court including Medellin v. Texas.