I go for a year following Christian doctrine and opposing the killing of another by our government

Jaibones on October 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM

That’s not a Christian doctrine at all.

frreal on October 11, 2007 at 6:58 AM

Exactly.

Mr. Bush ( I won’t call him President any more) has decided to kowtow to his La Raza friends only and U. S. sovereignty be damned

Yea, I don’t like this treaty… but I’ll enforce it this time?

What’s next? UN gun control? Also didn’t we appeal to someone under this treaty when the Iranians stormed our embassy? Worked out peachy for us… way to go Greorge! You have taken one more step toward tearing this country apart… I wonder if the people on capital hill realize that WE own this country, not them. (Ref: 1. Declaration of Independance 2. Constitution)

The authorities that exist have been established by God.
he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.

So Hitler was established by God and when we rebelled against him we rebelled against a divine institution. Sigh.

You didn’t want to mess with the Romans back then. They crucified people. What better way to get the Roman authorities on board but to issue divine commands to render unto Caesar.

ColtsFan on October 10, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Okay, I read Romans 13 and wow. If we’re going to start basing our actions on those tripe instructions we might as well invalidate the entire Declaration of Independence and a good part of the Bill of Rights.

The authorities that exist have been established by God.
he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted

Those two sections alone ought to make any freedom loving person cringe. To me all Romans 13 sounds like is a section of the Bible that those in authority could conveniently use to control the masses.

By the end of my lifetime, the country as we know it will be gone if this does not end.

Hawkins1701 on October 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM

-
I was born a fair number of years ago and the country as I knew it is already gone.

One of the biggest problems with opponents of the death penalty is that, if you follow the reasoning behind their arguments, no punishments at all could be implemented. This applies to both the constitutional/legal arguments and the Biblical/Christian arguments.

Good point.

Christ and His Apostles called on individual Christians to forgive, not governments. If governments shouldn’t execute criminals simply because individuals shouldn’t (or it’s “playing God” or whatever), what about throwing a guy behind bars for the rest of his life? Or even a month? What kind of punishment is acceptable?

Lancer on October 10, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Lancer, your careful analysis and keen logic are right on track. I commend you for keeping your reasoning faithful to the Scriptures.

With the onset of the “death of theology” from most church pulpits on Sunday mornings across our nation, mere emotion or “sentimentality” of a fluffy, weird sort has replaced concern and attention for theology and logic.

You are articulating very well the Reformed “2 Kingdom View” which the Bible speaks about.

Christ and His Apostles called on individual Christians to forgive, not governments. If governments shouldn’t execute criminals simply because individuals shouldn’t (or it’s “playing God” or whatever), what about throwing a guy behind bars for the rest of his life? Or even a month? What kind of punishment is acceptable?

The Medellin case: What is Bush thinking?

Can’t figure it out for the life of me. . Is it another Bush rope-a-dope ? ? Who knows. . I know one thing , I remember that day Randy Ertman was being interviewed about his missing daughter when he heard the police found his daughter in the woods. The media just kept the cameras rolling as this poor guy went crazy wild trying to get to his daughter. It was horrible. Why any of these bastards are still breathing is a puzzlement. They should have been taken to the back of the jailhouse right after sentencing and plugged in the back of there evil heads. . .
http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html

It’s pathetic to see people call themselves Christian and support the death penalty. Sure, they’ll attempt to say “I’m a sinner so I’m allowed to violate the beliefs I supposedly hold sacred,” but what it boils down to is a lust for blood that even a rereading of The Bible won’t cure.

Nonfactor on October 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM

The Bible ordains secular government to utilize the death penalty. That is what Romans chapter 13 teaches.

It is not a “lust for blood” at all.

It is simply correct Biblical interpretation.

By the way, I was rooting for your Packers the other day…

Exit question: If you get arrested in Mexico, do you have a RIGHT to contact the U.S. consulate? Do you have Miranda Rights? Has anyone around here been arrested or know someone who was arrested in Mexico?

The judicial branch nullifying an executive branch treaty nullification that was arguably never implemented by the legislative branch, and the exeuctive branch then agreeing with that outcome.

This is a true test of the Roberts court.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous. Wish the court was not involved.

JiangxiDad on October 10, 2007 at 4:13 PM

The way I understand it, only signatories to the UN Charter are able to utilize the ICJ. However, in any given dispute or issue among member states, the ICJ can only exercise “contentious jurisdiction”, (as opposed to “advisory jurisdiction”) if a member state expressly recognizes the ICJ’s jurisdiction on that issue. The OPVCCR, which we ratified in 1969 as you mentioned, regulates relations between signatory member’s consulates; in this case, relating to the rights of foreign nationals to have detaining states notify them of their right to notify their home consulates that they’ve been detained. The OPVCCR also expressly grants the ICJ jurisdiction over any disputes arising under the convention.

In 2005, we nullified our ratification of the convention, and with it our recognition of the ICJ’s dispute resolution jurisdiction. Now, you’re right, it would seem that because the Medellin matter arose before our nullification, the ICJ would maintain jurisdiction over the dispute. This is where the State of Texas’ separation of powers arguments come into play. I think Texas has the far stronger argument here on the merits, especially when you couple it with the fact that the United States expressly repealed our ratification of the treaty, albeit after Medellin.

Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Medellin here and set a precedent for future incidents of this nature, it would be effectively nullifying the United States nullification: The judicial branch nullifying an executive branch treaty nullification that was arguably never implemented by the legislative branch, and the exeuctive branch then agreeing with that outcome.

This is a true test of the Roberts court.

Russ

russcote on October 10, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Don’t really know how disputes were supposed to be resolved. Also, nullification doesn’t mean we are not in fact notifying consular officials now. I don’t know what we are doing, whether it’s ad hoc or institutionalized. I do know that Medellin is far from the only case.

I thought we withdrew from the optional protocols of the Vienna Treay of ‘63 regarding consular notification in ‘05, but after the Medellin case had begun. We initially ratified it in ‘69.

Thanks JiangxiDad. I didn’t realize the OPVCCR included an express dispute resolution delegation for that issue.

And, since we did nullify our ratification in 2005, setting a Supreme Court precedent now would effectively achieve the same result as that which we decided we wouldn’t let the ICJ achieve.

Thanks again.

Russ

Nonfactor on October 10, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Wonder if you’ll find any takers.