On the recordDecember 4, 2012
Again, the Senator has acknowledged that it does not become customary law; as a consequence, it has to somehow change. Within this--the Senator will agree that because the treaty adopts, in the body of the treaty, the statement that this is not self-executing and the Supreme Court has held that a nonexecuting treaty--let me just reference the specific case--Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, a 2004 case--the Supreme Court said it is dispositive. Nonself-executing declaration is dispositive. The Court noted that the United States ratified a prior thing then--and said, ``it does not create obligations enforceable in Federal courts.'' So there is no obligation created. The Senator then said: Why would we do this? Because we are the gold standard, and every other country is encouraged--encouraged; we cannot require them, but they are encouraged--to raise their standard to U.S. standards. Why would the Senator resist? I know the Senator and many of his colleagues argue we want other countries to be more like America. This is a treaty that, in fact, embraces that notion that they must be more like America. Why would the Senator not embrace that?





