The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in Medellin v Texas, and that ruling -- a 6-3 decision -- is a slam dunk victory for our nation, our Constitution, and all of us as citizens.

The Supreme Court has essentially ruled that international treaties cannot be used to rewrite state law unless Congress has acted proactively to enact Federal statutes to that effect.

This case should be viewed as hallmark victory for those of us who reject the imposition of foreign law and jurisprudence on citizens who neither voted for those laws nor for lawmakers to vote for those laws.

The case itself is actually a little complicated, but former Justice Department official Andy McCarthy does an excellent job cutting to the chase in an essay on National Review Online.

Here are the high point facts from McCarthy's essay:

It was June 1993 when fourteen-year-old Jennifer Ertman and sixteen-year-old Elizabeth Pena fatefully decided to take a shortcut home along a railroad trestle.  There, they encountered Jose Ernesto Medellin and other members of a vicious Houston street gang.  Medellin and his fellow savages repeatedly raped the girls, murdered them by strangulation, and then discarded their bodies, which were finally found days later.

Medellin was soon arrested.  He was eighteen at the time and had lived most of his life in the United States.  The arresting officers gave him standard Miranda warnings, advising him that he was under no obligation to speak with them, that any statements he made could be used against him, and that, whether or not he chose to speak, he had a right to have a lawyer -- paid for by the state -- present and assisting him.  As many defendants do, he waived those rights.  Within three hours, he had confessed to, among other things, murder in the course of a sexual assault.  The people of the sovereign state of Texas, through their elected representatives, have made that crime a capital offense.  Given that the death penalty is expressly mentioned in the Constitution -- including three times in the Fifth Amendment alone -- there is no plausible argument that Texas’s policy is unconstitutional.

Medellin, however, was a national of Mexico.  Consequently, under Article 36 of a treaty known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the police were obligated to notify him of his right to have his consulate advised of his arrest.

Therein lies the rub. The police failed to notify him of his right to have his consulate advised of his arrest.  Why this happened is unknown for sure, but it was not a deliberate attempt on the part of police to deny him the rights.  However, Medellin sued, claiming his was denied his rights under Article 36.

As McCarthy notes, Medellin was vigorously defended by competent counsel, who failed to raise the issue at trial.  So he filed a habeus corpus petition, arguing that his trial was unlawful because of the lack of notification. And thus is how the case got to the Supreme Court.

But here is the problem for Medellin, and those "transnational progressives" who would tear down the sovereign rights of states:  treaties do not, have not, and cannot be used as a basis for legal claims by aggrieved citizens.  Treaties are agreements between sovereign nations.  Their remedies are diplomatic or military, not legal.

What made Medellin's case important, however, was that the US is a signatory to the "Optional Protocol", which makes the UN's International Court of Justice the final arbiter in consular notification violations.  The US lost at the ICJ -- surprise, surprise -- and the ICJ went so far as to "order" the United States to review the death penalty sentences of all Mexican nationals currently on death row in the US.

Inexplicably, President Jorge Bush -- apparently never finding enough Mexican ass to kiss and testicles to tongue-bathe -- used a memorandum to his Attorney General to attempt to force the states to abide by the ICJ's decision.  Except there is one problem:  the President lacks the authority to order state governments to perform such reviews, or even alter state laws, absent a clear violation of the US Constitution.

And so this is how we got to the United States Supreme Court.  And this is how the United States Supreme Court, led by Bush-appointee Chief Justice Roberts, bitch slapped President Jorge with a clean backhand.

What the Supreme Court essentially said was that international treaties, unless accompanied by executing legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President, can in no way force a state to alter or change or invalidate its laws.

Why is this a great victory?  Because "transnational progressives" who believe in the arch supremacy of the United Nations -- and one world government, and all that bullcrap -- have long been trying to use international treaties as a way to compell changes in state law.  Not just in law enforcement and crime, but in a host of other areas.  Like 2nd Amendment Rights.  And abortion rights.  And religious freedom.  And educational freedom.  And parental rights. And free speech rights.

Pick a clause or amendment or enumerated right in the United States Constitution, and these disloyal anti-Americans have been trying to undo American Federalism through UN treaties and edicts.

But not anymore.