Peter Lemkin Wrote:Texas Grand Jury Indicts Cheney and Gonzales on State Charges
And a grand jury in Texas has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on state charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in private prisons in Texas. The indictment has not been seen by a judge, who could dismiss it. The indictment cites Cheney’s investment in Vanguard Group, which owns an interest in private prisons in South Texas. Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation in 2006 into abuses at one of the privately run prisons.
...stay tuned!
Problem is it's a federal crime, with a State Grand Jury indictment, State Court jurisdiction. The Supremacy Clause- below- may also be implicated here.
But it's a fine start, good that someone is trying to indict these bastards.
But I see this particular case going nowhere.
Dawn
The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
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.
The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.
An early example of the Supreme Court ruling that a state law violated the constitution under the Supremacy Clause came in the landmark McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), wherein the court ruled that the state of Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States, establishing the principle that the states could not tax the federal government.
While the Supremacy Clause specifically says that "all Treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land", certain treaties are regarded as “self-executing,” that is, independently enforceable, while others are not considered enforceable as domestic law unless Congress has enacted implementing legislation, or "non-self-executing."
Treaties must comply with the Constitution.[dubious – discuss] However, the treaty-making power of the President is broader than the law-making power of Congress. The Supreme Court ruled in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) that pursuant to a treaty with Britain, the United States President, with approval of the Senate, could regulate the hunting of migratory birds, even though Congress had no independent authority to pass such legislation.
There's been some debate (and fear) as to whether or not some of the basic principles of the United States Constitution, such as the country's system of government or Bill of Rights could be affected by an ambitious treaty. Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present.[dubious – discuss] In the 1950s a constitutional amendment known as the Bricker Amendment was proposed in response to such fears; it would have mandated that all US treaties not conflict with the existing powers granted to the US government. Subsequent legal precedents, notably, Seery v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 601 (Court of Claims, 1955) and Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), ultimately established some of the limitations sought by the Bricker Amendment.
PGE. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983) is a Supreme Court case that lays out a variety of tests that may be used to determine if state statutes are superseded or preempted by federal legislation.
