Racial discrimination in the legal profession



Download 0.87 Mb.
Page11/11
Date06.04.2021
Size0.87 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


 Pg. 11, Memorandum Opinion on the Geographic Scope of the Convention Against Torture and Its Application in Situations of Armed Conflict, January 21, 2013.

144

 For more than forty years, the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) has been one of the United States' largest membership organizations for teachers of law. SALT has a three-part mission: 1) creating and maintaining a community of progressive and caring law professors dedicated to making a difference through the power of law; 2) promoting the use of many forms and innovative styles of teaching to make our classrooms more inclusive; and 3) challenging faculty and students to develop legal institutions with greater equality, justice, and excellence.

145

 Article 38 Statute of the International Court of Justice definition of international law.

146

 Section 111 and Comment (a), Restatement of the Law Third, the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (American Law Institute May 14, 1986).

147

 Wednesday, February 6, 1788, James Madison, Federalist Paper 51 available at http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm.

148

 Section 111(1), Restatement of the Law Third, the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, (American Law Institute 1986) (“International law and international agreements of the United States are law of the United States and supreme over the law of the several states.”). Some scholars argue that customary international law and general principles are state law. Jack L. Goldsmith & Curtis Bradley, Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 815 (1997).

149

 Foster & Elam v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829).

150

 Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), has increased the uncertainty.

151

 Id.

152

 The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900).

153

 Cf. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920); Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). This year, a majority of the Supreme Court somewhat skirted the issue of whether structural grants of power between the U.S. federal and state governments act as limits on the treaty making power and legislative power of the federal government. This case involved the interpretation of the effect of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. S. Treaty Doc. No. 103–21, 1974 U. N. T. S. 317. The Court held this treaty is a non-self-executing treaty with (unlike the ICERD) implementing legislation through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. See 112 Stat. 2681–856. Under the principle that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case, the Court concluded that the relevant section of the implementing legislation which tracks the treaty language should be read narrowly. Absent a clear statement of that purpose, the Court stated it would not presume Congress to have authorized reaching the conduct of the individual in question. A majority of the Court would view such reach of an implementing statute as a stark intrusion by the federal government into traditional state police power authority. The Court noted that if the statute reached the conduct in question, it would mark a dramatic departure from that constitutional structure and a serious reallocation of criminal law enforcement authority between the Federal Government and the States. Bond, supra note 103. This line of reasoning trims the force of Missouri v. Holland by raising structural federalism concerns about the reach of implementing legislation that tracks language of a treaty entered into under the authority of the United States. Of even greater concern, three justices who concurred in the result of the majority expressed views that the federal treaty power did not reach “internal domestic matters” of the kind that are at the heart of human rights treaties such as the ICERD, a conclusion that is at odds with prevailing interpretation of constitutional treaty-making power. See Bond, supra note 103 (Scalia, J., concurring). The implication could not be clearer. This recent decision indicates a further destabilizing of U.S. domestic implementation of international law to avoid treaty obligations. In addition to existing federalism challenges to implementing legislation of non-self-executing treaties and to rare self-executing treaties, the Bond decision threatens a narrowing vision of the treaty power of the federal government that excludes undertaking treaties concerning internal domestic matters (including human rights treaties). It is therefore evident that a destabilizing of the domestic consequences of U.S. ratification of human rights treaties is ongoing.

154

 Section 115, Restatement of the Law Third, the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (American Law Institute 1986).

155

 Harold Hongju Koh, Memorandum on Opinion on the Geographic Scope of the Convention Against Torture and Its Application in Situations of Armed Conflict 11 (January 21, 2013), available at http://justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/state-department-cat-memo.pdf.

156

 Section II, United States Reservations, Understandings and Declarations to the ICERD, available at https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en#EndDec

157

 Customary international law and general principles are sometimes argued in academic circles to be state law.

158

 Oklahoma, See Concurrence of Judge Charles S. Chapel, Torres v. Oklahoma No. PCD-04-442 (Okla. Crim. App. May 13, 2004).

159

 See Medellin v. Texas 552 U.S. 491 (2008); Virginia Governor’s statement of April 14, 1998 (in the Angel Breard case subsequent to Breard v. Greene, The Republic of Paraguay v. Gilmore, 523 U.S. 371 (1998)).

160

 Ryan H. Boyer, Student Note, “Unveiling” Kansas’s Ban on Application of Foreign Law, 61 Kansas L. Rev. 1061 (2013).


Directory: Treaties -> CERD -> Shared%20Documents -> USA
USA -> United States Customs And Border Protection Has Not Addressed The 2008 cerd committee Recommendation And Engages In Excessive Force For Which There Is No Accountability And The Organization Lacks Transparency. June 30, 2014
Shared%20Documents -> Hmong ChaoFa States
Treaties -> Period: Date: Comparing Treaties
Shared%20Documents -> Illegitimizing roma refugees in canada
Shared%20Documents -> Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 80th Session
Shared%20Documents -> 【Definition of Minority (Article 1)】
Shared%20Documents -> Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 80th Session
Shared%20Documents -> Request for adoption of a Decision under the Urgent Action/ Early Warning Procedure in Connection with violation of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Northeast, India
USA -> Follow Up Report To the United Nations Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination immigration submitted by: Prof. Margaret Drew University of Massachusetts School of Law Joined By Prof


Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page