Today in Supreme Court History: July 27, 1929

7/27/1929: The Geneva Conventions are signed by United States. The Supreme Court would consider the Conventions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).

The Roberts Court (2006)

 

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

“The United States has signed and ratified the four Conventions of 1949 and Protocol III of 2005, but has not ratified the two Protocols of 1977, though it has signed them.”

I’ve always found the arguments over the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties interesting; It purports to make treaties that have been signed, but not ratified, binding anyway. Ironically, the US has signed it, but not ratified it. The Executive branch (Which signs treaties!) takes the position that the US is bound by the Convention, the Senate (Which ratifies them!) takes the position that, no, we are not.

Constitutionally, the Senate has the better argument, of course.

[apedad]

100% agree about the treaties haven't been signed by the Senate so the US is not bound by them.

At the same time, the Pres can (and does) make Rules of Engagement which - if he chooses - can mirror the treaty requirements.

So in practical terms, it's kind of a wash.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the President can make pinky promises, which the next President is free to ignore.

One of my many annoyances with Trump was that he went through the motions of withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, as though we were a party to it, instead of just publicly announcing that, in as much as it had never been ratified, there wasn't anything to actually withdraw from under US law. I'm sure the permanent Executive branch legal staff argued to do that, to preserve the President's claim to be able to obligate the country with a signature... But it was still an unforced error.

[Dilan Esper]

It depends on what you mean by binding. There's a thing called customary international law. It is a part of our law. (See, e.g., The Schooner Charming Betsey; The Paquete Habana, etc.) Customary international law is important- for instance, it's how everyone has the right to try war criminals.

Now customary international law can't override a "controlling executive or legislative act". In other words, the President can decide "screw customary international law, I'm gonna do this anyway". And Congress can do the same thing, with a clear statement. But in many situations that hasn't happened and the US is supposed to keep itself in compliance with customary international law, and our courts will enforce it. It has about the same status as domestic common law. And unratified treaties can be evidence of customary international law, especially if the objections are technical.

What a treaty gets you is the power to override the President and Congress. Obviously, in reality, a President can ignore a treaty too, but he's not supposed to. And if Congress passes a law in conflict with an executed, ratified treaty, it can be struck down.

[defaultdotxbe]

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is another example. The US has signed it, but not ratified. Because of this (and similar non-action or partial actions by other Annex 2 nations) the treaty has not yet come into force even on those who have fully ratified it. However, all UN-recognized nuclear weapons states have been abiding by the treaty since its adoption by the UN.

[John F. Carr]

The Convention provides for signature subject to ratification. See Articles 11 through 16 for the modes of acceptance.

In cases where domestic law forbids compliance with the treaty Article 46 applies. If the other state should have known better, compliance is excused. The better practice is to sign subject to a reservation, as the United States might do if a treaty prohibited malicious burning of religious books.

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess the difference is that according to the Convention, a signed but not ratified treaty has some force, but from a US constitutional standpoint, it would have none, unratified treaties are legally just pieces of paper.

[John F. Carr]

A treaty may be signed "ad referendum", explicitly contingent on approval by the the signer's government.

[Krayt]

Sounds like a game of Nomic.

"Ha ha! We got a treaty approved that says the Senate has no more role in approving treaties!"

This set off my weasel detector in college almost 40 years ago when a fellow student got us to vote and approve a new law, then he revealed he lied what the law was and had actually written "I win!" on the piece of paper.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

And now he's a Washington lobbyist.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Mahan v. Howell, 404 U.S. 1201 (decided July 27, 1971): in one of his last acts, Hugo Black refuses to stay District Court order changing reapportionment done by Virginia legislature so that there was lesser disparity in population (7.2% vs. 16.4%); because of time pressures, and because the issues were complicated and the lower court judges were unanimous, Black did not believe that cert would be granted (in fact it was, after Black and Harlan retired -- and quickly died -- and were replaced by Powell and Rehnquist, and the Court reversed, letting the legislature’s reapportionment stand, 410 U.S. 315, 1973)

[Dan Schiavetta]

today’s movie review: Moonraker, 1979

I don’t care what anyone says, this was entertaining. You might say it was trying to capitalize on “Star Wars”, the second half of it being set in space, but you could also say that the early Bond movies ripped off “North by Northwest”. “Moonraker” is not a Star Wars film, it is a Bond film — evil genius whose plan is foiled by the hero sounds Star Wars, but it was a Bond plot first.

“My time” was this era, watching Roger Moore’s “amazing stunt eyebrows”. I could never suspend disbelief — the Bond premise had too little contact with reality. Supposedly smart crooks who try to kill him in hilariously inefficient ways, ridiculously overcomplicated gadgets, beautiful killers who fall for his “charms” . . . giggle giggle.

(The worst was when he drops his pants and the woman says, “Oh, James!!” Whereas in real life, exposing a huge penis would be met with the girl speaking through a bullhorn: “Attention! Stay where you are! Do not come any closer — repeat — Stay Where You Are!!” Yes, this is adolescent male fantasy.)

I could only enjoy Bond if played as a joke, which is what Moore does. He’s on record saying, “When I researched the role, the first thing I realized is that this guy is not a real spy. Not when everyone knows his name, recognizes him, even knows that his favorite drink is.” The Get Smart and Austin Powers parodies practically wrote themselves.

By this time all the Ian Fleming novels had been exhausted (they did contain a Drax, but his crime was cheating at cards). Years ago I went to the library and read Fleming’s original Bond story, “Casino Royale” from 1954. I was struck by the misogyny — at the end when he kills the spy, he exults to his boss, “The Bitch Is Dead!”, whereas he already knew she was doing only what she had to do because of the threats her Communist masters were making against her family. Connery’s Bond was not exactly misogynist, but he wasn’t fun either.

Back to “Moonraker” . . . Lois Chiles is not the sexiest Bond girl, but she radiates intelligence and is an equal partner with him. Drax’s plan involves eugenics, as Bond points out, which turns “Jaws” (Richard Kiel) against him. Jaws’s tiny girlfriend is cute and so is their romance. Michael Lonsdale was great as Drax. I understand he was told to ooze a kind of Nixonian malevolence (though Nixon wasn’t evil, just neurotic).

Richard Kiel wrote a nonfiction book about Muhammad Ali’s family history and was an interesting person. There are interviews of him online.

“I think he is attempting reentry” is either the best or the worst ending.

[Brett Bellmore]

In Charles Stross' "The Jennifer Morgue", the villain of the piece is using sorcery involving a bunch of Fleming paperbacks to force any government agent who comes after him to fall into James Bond behavior patterns, and thus become easily identified. It's a pretty good read, might not make too much sense if you haven't read the earlier Laundry books to be familiar with the back story. But they're worth reading, it was a great series.

Sadly, the series later went off the rails, though in a way that's kind of consistent with the universe it's set in. It's just that I have trouble getting "into" a novel where NONE of the characters are the least bit sympathetic... I actually read a couple books past the point where I enjoyed it, just in the hope that the ship would somehow right itself again.

[Syd Henderson]

You don't have to read too many Laundry books beforehand since "The Jennifer Morgue" is the second in the series. The novelette "The Concrete Jungle" takes place in between.

[Krayt]

Why would you want people coming after you to behave like James Bond? Why not Superman while you're at it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not to spoil the plot, but as noted above, James Bond is kinda conspicuous. And probably easier to deal with than a hostile government auditing your books, in the real world he'd be a terrible spy.

[Krayt]

Using spells to make someone like fictional highly competent characters is risky. Two different Buffy episodes dealt with it: Xander becoming a super soldier because that’s what his Halloween costume was, and Johnathan.

Sounds like it's the kind of thing that should have backfired.

Oh, and Moriarty in Star Trek.

[Brett Bellmore]

Again, "not to spoil the plot"...

The main advantage was that nobody could come after him conventionally, the spell made sending in a Bond analog the only possible approach, which took a conventional military strike, seizing bank accounts, and things like that completely off the table.

[Krayt]

Not to spoiler, but in older Bonds, he’s part of a much larger military assault on tbe bad guys’ island bases.

In newer ones (Quantum of Solace, No Time To Die) he solos the entire base.

He’s also no stranger to walking in the front door and being recognized right away.

I'm having fun arguing against a story I never read. I do like Charles Stross.

[Brett Bellmore]

I do, too; My only complaint about the turn the Laundry series took is that the last couple of books were mostly about characters I found unlikable. (That sort of thing can be well written, but not my cup of tea.) And, as I said, "Escape from Yokai land" felt like a novel abandoned halfway through, with a quick ending patched on so it could be sold. I hate it when authors pull that.

I was mostly reading the books to follow Bob's adventures.

[SRG]

I liked the whole Laundry Files series though I found the later ones just a little "stretched". I'm a fan of Stross in general aside from the Merchant Princes series.

[Syd Henderson]

I got really tired of the people with bugs on their tongues. On the other hand, I liked the vampires, especially Mhari (who, if you remember was previously Bob's girlfriend from Hell, and the friendly elf.

[Sarcastr0]

Friends tell me the series' latest entries are good again, but I haven't the energy to try.

[Brett Bellmore]

The "new management" books left me kind of cold, for the reason related. Escape from Yokai Land was decent, but just a novella, and had the feel of a novel he'd abandoned partway through, and then just tacked on a quick ending so that he could market it. Quite the disappointment.

Season of Skulls came out after I gave up on the series, can't really say anything about it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My take on "the bitch is dead" was the exact opposite and I found that to be one of the saddest endings of any book I'd ever read.

It's Bond keeping the stiff upper lip and showing the expected British reserve for duty before pleasure. Memory is that he had feelings for her, that he was regretting her death. Memory also is that he was saying this over an open line, knowing the Soviets would hear it as well.

Connery's best movie -- by far -- is Hunt for Red October and he quit Bond -- twice -- saying he didn't like what it was doing to him.

[Magister]

Roger Moore era was the low point of Bond movies. Movies transformed Fleming's original Bond from brutal government assassin to something that movie audiences would embrace, replacing the brutality with gadgets and surreal villains, and the 1970s squeezed most of the sexism out of Fleming's character, leaving only self parody.

[Sarcastr0]

I like the campy-but-not-pigeon-double-take-campy Bond of Goldeneye.
When I saw the Sean Connery movies I was surprised how much less fun I was having than I expected. Compelling and well paced movies, but not the Bond I grew up with 😛

[SRG]

not the Bond I grew up with

That pretty much determines who one thinks is the best Bond. I preferred Connery, though when you rewatch the earliest ones, you realise that he was not a particularly good actor, though he had presence. It's a difficult role - Timothy Dalton, who is an excellent actor, was just not very good. Nothwithstanding my comment above, though, to my own surprise I think that Daniel Craig was the best Bond, just as I found Gary Oldman the best Dracula.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Dalton seemed tired. He should have taken the role when it was offered to him years before.

I saw Craig in “Skyfall”. He was very good. And I liked how Bond was finally called out as an alcoholic!

[Syd Henderson]

Connery was much better in his post-Bond roles. Craig's "Casino Royale," and "Skyfall" were quite good, but "Spectre" was pretty lame (not Craig's fault" really. I mostly liked "No Time to Die". He's my choice for the best actor to play Bond.

[Dilan Esper]

Connery obviously gets credit for launching the series, but his Bond is a complete douchebag and that's not really the character.

[Bob from Ohio]

"brutal government assassin "

Bond belonged to a spy agency but was a special operations guy, not a spy. He didn't gather intel, he destroyed enemy personnel/operations and could kill without higher approval.

[SRG]

Drax has two great lines. “Look after Mr Bond. See that some harm comes to him”, and “at last, Mr Bond, I can put you out of my misery”.

I liked the exchange, “You missed.” “Did I?”

I thought Lois Chiles sucked. And not in a good way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Bond villains have some of the best lines, must be fun to play them.

This remains my favorite Bond exchange, though.

[SRG]

Excellent!

[Dilan Esper]

You are absolutely right about Moore. He's not perfect- he gets too old to play Bond- but his realization that Bond is a caricature of a spy allows him to play the role in a way that is broadly entertaining. The other Bond who got that was Pierce Brosnan (who was also better looking than Moore and thus was probably a better Bond overall). Daniel Craig is a great actor but his Bond is way too much of a stuffed shirt because he didn't get that central aspect of the character.

And Moonraker is just a blast. Full of funny lines, and "Jaws" should have been in more Bond films.

[SRG]

Well, Jaws was in "The Spy Who Loved Me". But once he became a good guy, there was no role for him. Also apparently the prosthetic teeth were really painful to wear.

[Dilan Esper]

They should bring the character back now. Given all the fanservice in the Star Wars sequels, it's at most a misdemeanor.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Bond movies brought us Austin Powers and Fat Bastard.

And Scott.

And others who would violate the link limit.

[Ridgeway]

Michael Lonsdale was a highly underrated actor. He was also great as the detective (Lebel?) in Day of the Jackal, and had a good role in the Smiley's People miniseries.

[Magister]

I watched 12 Angry Men last night and enjoyed it a lot. Thanks for the reviews.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Here are other worthwhile legal entertainments:

The Verdict
My Cousin Vinny
Witness for the Prosecution
Philadelphia
Judgment at Nuremberg
Erin Brockovich
Night Shift*
Animal House
A Few Good Men
and . . . of course . . .
And Justice For All

* more illegal than legal

[Dilan Esper]

Inherit the Wind.

[Dilan Esper]

Also The Caine Mutiny.

[Ridgeway]

Caine Mutiny was great. So was Anatomy of a Murder.

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is one of my all-time favorites, and it has a good courtroom scene from a slightly ... different perspective.

[David Nieporent]

Some are more realistic than others.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Expand the net to include movies *about* lawyers, and you get Gandhi.