In Too Deep.

Ok, I've been doing some reading to try and get a better opinion on this whole Medellin V. Texas thing.  And it seems to me that the Supremacy Clause spells out pretty clearly what should happen.

"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 notwithstanding."

As was stated in the Slate article, Souter brings up an excellent point.  This clause of the Constitution not only asserts the document's supreme authority, but grants authority of international treaties over state judges. 

1) Constitution
2) Congressional Laws
3) Treaties
4) Whatever laws the states want to pass

Boom-bam, Congress ratified the UN Charter , and the judges of Texas are bound by the decisions of its court.  So technically the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over US States when various conditions are met in a case so long as the decision doesn't violate the constitution.  Treaties before States.  Of course that might give you the heeby-jeebies, and for good reason.  Treaties overriding local laws could give a bit more power to a certain parties than we'd like to think about.  (Like with Missouri V. Holland wherein Congress restricted migratory bird hunting, was sued by states and lost since the Constitution did not explicitly list this in its powers.  A quick trip to the UK and Congress enacts basically the same thing, this time with a treaty under its arm and the legislation stands as part of Congress's Constitutional duties.  The states can't even contest it because they lack judicial review over treaties.   Yikes.)  Luckily George jumped up and highlighted these fears perfectly by ordering the state courts to comply with the treaty.  George, you don't get to tell them what to do.  The Constitution gets to tell them what to do.  It works that way for you too, so maybe instead of just ordering the things you want happen, why don't you spend some time thinking about what you're allowed to make happen.

Its kinda like a child in the grocery demanding his mother buy a certain product because it contains a race car prize.  Oddly enough, the mother discovers that its actually the most healthy and cost effective choice, and would have purchased it without the child's protestations.  But now you run the risk of giving a minor the impression that he has some type of sway over the actions of adults, despite the fact that he really had no effect other than casting doubt on the proper course of action.

The trouble is how to rule on the legal side, with the catch 22 of Bush's ill-conceived dictum lurking in the shadows.  But I'm sure they're gonna pull out some kinda legal-ninja-fu that I will never understand out of a bookcase thicker than a redwood.  After all, they are the Supreme Court; and that doesn't just mean "Law with sour cream".