Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
CIA planned assassination in Germany | 73 comments (73 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: EAW (4.00 / 3)
The clause was in the original constitution, yet:

Extradition Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The meaning of the extradition clause was first really tested in the case of Kentucky v. Dennison [1860]. The case involved a man named Willis Lago who was wanted in Kentucky for helping a slave girl escape. He had fled to Ohio, where the governor, William Dennison, refused to extradite him back to Kentucky. In this case, the court ruled that, while it was the duty of a governor to return a fugitive to the state where the crime was committed, a governor could not be compelled through a writ of mandamus to do so.

Puerto Rico v. Branstad Main article: Puerto Rico v. Branstad

In 1987, the court reversed its decision under Dennison. The case involved an Iowan, Ronald Calder who struck a married couple near Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The husband survived but the wife, who was eight months pregnant, did not. Following the incident, Calder was charged with murder and let out on bail. While on bail, Ronald Calder fled to his home-state of Iowa. In May 1981, the Governor of Puerto Rico submitted a request to the Governor of Iowa for extradition of Ronald Calder to face murder charges. The Governor of Iowa refused the request, forcing the Governor of Puerto Rico to file a writ of mandamus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The Court rejected it, ruling that under Kentucky v. Dennison, the Governor of Iowa was not obligated to return Calder. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court felt differently, ruling unanimously that the Federal Courts did indeed have the power to enforce a writ of mandamus and that Kentucky v. Dennison was outdated.

So it wasn't until 1987 that interstate extradition was cleared up without confusion or loopholes.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Dec 5th, 2009 at 04:14:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: EAW (none / 1)
Yes, I guess you could say the law didn't change, the Court did.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Dec 6th, 2009 at 05:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: EAW (none / 1)
What you can fairly say, it seems to me, is that, even with a clearly federal constitution, it took the US two centuries to clear up the extradition question in practice, since states were (still are, in some cases), jealous of their rights.

The EU doesn't have a federal constitution: it's composed of sovereign states. Extradition procedures bring sovereignty into play. Getting each member state to apply the same procedures may take a little time.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 02:02:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: EAW (4.00 / 3)
Yes, the question was not the wording of the law but the evolving concept of Federalism.  However, by the time the matter was settled by the court in 1987, the 1860 court ruling was considered archaic and not representative of accepted thought on the role of the Federal Government.

I went back, after you quoted from the decisions, and looked at the 1860 opinion, which made for interesting but strange reading.  Given the political environment in 1860 and the nature of the case, it seems strange (to me) that the Court came down on the side of States rights. The issue that ultimately led to the Civil War was differing opinions (particularly by Lincoln) about the rights of States to secede.  That right was apparently the primary one that caused Southern States to believe they could withdraw from the Union without conflict with the US central government. Even after secession the Southern States were extremely guarded of their sovereignty, an often contentious matter between individual States and the Confederate Government that had a serious bearing on the conduct of the war.

Surprizing that it took the US so long to arrive at a USSC decision this important.  Thanks for your posts and patience.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Dec 7th, 2009 at 01:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CIA planned assassination in Germany | 73 comments (73 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: