Onward to the 18th Century!

I want to know what this means:

Although the Bush administration objected to the ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the president wrote a memorandum ordering the state courts to comply.

He said the ICJ’s decision must be carried out because the US had agreed to abide by the court’s rulings in such cases.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the ICJ’s decision could not be forced upon the states.

The president may not “establish binding rules of decision that pre-empt contrary state law”, Mr Roberts wrote.

Politically, it’s a potential PR boost for Bush – he tried, he really really tried! – but for once I’m not concerned about that.

I’m concerned that it seems like the Supreme Court just ruled that international agreements signed by U.S. rank lower than…. the will of individual states?



I must be missing something. It sounds like Roberts just introduced one hell of a doctrine of states’ rights.

Any attorneys (past, present or future) out there want to comment? Please?

h/t CA.

Explore posts in the same categories: international relations, states' rights, supreme court

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: