Medellin is a Mexican national on death row in Texas. The Mexican government wasn't informed when he was arrested and faced a hearing. The U.S. government ratified an international obligation that it would notify governments when their citizens are arrested in the U.S. and that those governments would notify the U.S. when U.S. citizens are arrested in their countries. The U.S. Constitution says that such ratified laws become U.S. law. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't like this "I'm rather jealous of that power," Scalia said. "I don't know on what basis we can allow some international court to decide what is the responsibility of this court, which is the meaning of the United States law."
Well, if the U.S. government were to enter into a treaty that attempted to do away with the Bill of Rights, for instance, it would be an unconstitutional treaty. Scalia could throw it out as such. However, notification does not violate the Constitution. When an obligation becomes U.S. law, under the Constitution, Scalia has the duty and right to interpret that law. The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't give that power over to any International Court. It has the right and duty under the mundane law to review the decisions of any International Court to find whether or not the ruling is in line with the U.S. Constitution. His argument is wrong.
Of course, what else concerns him is the death penalty. He is a firm supporter of capital punishment. He thinks it is sanctioned by St. Paul. Of course, it is forbidden by Jesus Christ, but that hasn't deterred Antonin's speech and writings for the death penalty. This is a prime example where traditional Pauline Christianity runs squarely into real Christianity.
Christianity forbids capital punishment. Vengeance is God's. Human beings are not authorized by God to take the lives of other human beings. That authorization is a lie that has entered into humanity's consciousness by the satanic, fallen spirit who serves to kill the consciences of people and hence their souls in hell.
Now, George W. Bush's administration has weighed in saying that Texas must adhere to the International agreement. Here we see Bush siding with International law when it is convenient for him. He's thinking ahead about himself and his cronies of course. He blatantly ignores and twists the meaning of other treaty obligations when he wants to torture even the innocent, and make no mistake about it, holding innocent people in prison is a form of psychological torture, and even physical torture, for the brain is the physical manifestation of spirit for those given to understand that.
Texas in the meantime says that the whole thing is moot, because the outcome of the hearing would have been the same regardless. This is something they are not in a position to determine. The whole point of the treaty is that having benefit of diplomatic and other assistance by one's country of citizenship can impact upon the outcome of such hearings, etc.
Regardless, if everyone would just adhere to the real law that is the New Commandment, all of this would be moot.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)