From: "David Anderson" <>
Date: October 8, 2008

A US Supreme Court case that got very little attention may be returning us to the days of the substantial state’s rights our ancestors  intended.

In Medellin v. Texas, Mr. Medellin, a Mexican, killed two young women in Texas and was convicted of murder.  His lawyers appealed to the World  Court arguing that the Vienna Convention (to which the US is a signatory)  required Texas to allow Mr. Medellin to contact the Mexican consulate before his  trial.

The World Court agreed and required the US to give Mr. Medellin a  new trial.

The Bush Administration ordered Texas to do so.  Texas  refused and set up the gas chamber for Mr. Medellin.  The Bush  Administration appealed to the US Supreme Court.

The Court found for Texas, citing the fact, among others, that states  have a substantial amount of sovereignty granted by the Constitution  and may not necessarily be bound by all national obligations such as  international  treaties.   States have rights, and the Federal  government has to respect them.

Thus, it appears that the Roberts’ Court feels that the state’s rights need to be protected.  Does this include secession?  In an era of red  and blue states, and contentious politics, this is an important case  interpreting the Constitution.

David Anderson

"Liberty is always won where there exists the unconquerable will to be free, and we have reason to know the strength that is given by a conscious sense, not only of the magnitude, but of the righteousness of our cause." ~ Jefferson Davis,
President C.S.A., State of the Confederacy Address,
November 18, 1861.