It’s raining at the office right now. Here’s proof.
You can’t see the little hailstones, but trust me, they’re there.
It’s raining at the office right now. Here’s proof.
Jen & I are in the habit of watching The West Wing reruns on Bravo – mainly because the writing is excellent, even if the politics are brainless. One such example of brainlessness was exhibited last night.
Charlie Young (played by DulÃ© Hill) was assigned to watch over some young guy for a time. They got in a conversation/argument, during which the young boy demonstrated his ignorance of the Constitution by claiming that the President speaking at the Red Mass was illegal because “there was a law”, which he couldn’t specify.
Horse apples and cow pies.
The First Amendment states
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.
The Red Mass is not established by Congress, therefore, it is not a violation of the First Amendment. It is established by tradition, and attendance at the mass is not required by law.
The trouble is the courts do not view the situation thusly. Judicial dictat has ruled that “endorsement” constitutes a violation, not actual lawmaking. Therefore, if some congressman recommends that someone attend a mass they face the threat of lawsuit brought by the ACLU, stalwart offenders of people’s rights to freely express themselves. This misreading of the Constitution creates the irony that the Courts, instead of defending the clear language of the Constitution, becomes its offender by prohibiting people from acting out the second right enumerated in the First Amendment – free exercise of religion.
One hopes that John Roberts, should he be confirmed by the Senate, would not misread the Constitution so flagrantly. Fortunately, it appears that his record indicates he would not. Time will tell.
Over vacation I started and finished 13 Cent Killers: The 5th Marine Snipers in Vietnam. While I do like reading history books, I prefer them to be well-written. Though John Culbertson writes from the heart, his skills with the pen are not as refined as they might be.
Jen has started a new category over in her neck of MM.net – Bottom of the Barrel Wine Reviews. Check it out before you pick up a wine for dinner.
Much ado has been made by Hugh and Michelle in re: Judge Coughenour sentencing Ahmed Ressam to 13.5-16.5 more years in jail for his involvement in the attempted bombing of LAX International. Since Democrats want to prosecute the war as a criminal affair and Republicans want to prosecute it as a war, I propose the following:
If a subject is an American citizen, put him on trial. If the subject is a foreign national, treat him as a man-at-arms – which is to say, shoot him in combat. If its too difficult to tell (because of all the lead he’s sending your way) presume he’s a foreign national. At least that way we respect the rights of the citizens and we treat those at war with us the way they need to be treated.
Previously, I posted questions to my representatives regarding the Kelo vs. New London decision. Senator Kyl’s office has responded, copied in full below.
Dear Mr. Maynard:
Thank you for contacting me about the recent Supreme Court decision regarding private property rights, Kelo v. New London.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compoensation.” However, in its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the local government has the right to seize private property for the development of private enterprise. The court reasoned that a city’s desire for more tax revenue was sufficient to satisfy the “public use” requirement.
I believe the Supreme Court has allowed local governmental interest to trump the property rights of private citizens. This broad definition of “public use” does not comport with the Constitution’s plain language or the intentions of those Founders who drafted the provision. The result of the Court’s decision could be quite unsettling. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor explained in her dissent, “the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”
It is important to note that Arizona’s state constitution (art. I, 17) Â§ 17) provides greater protections for private property than the Supreme Court has recognized under the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, the potential for abuse posed by the Kelo decision is significant, and it demands a federal response.
To that end, I have cosponsored S.1313, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. This bill would prevent the federal government from abusing its eminenet domain power in the way that the Supreme Court has sanctioned. It would also prevent any local government from using federal funds to do what the Town of New London did here. In addition to supporting this legislation, I am currently researching other ways that Congress can act to better protect private property from state and local governments. This is a fundamental principle given to us by the Founding Fathers, and I intend to do my part to see that it remains robust.
United States Senator
At least one third of my delegation is interested in letting me keep my house.
Watching Barbara Boxer on Fox News the other day, discussing the John Roberts nomination, I realized why Democrats and Republicans are always at loggerheads over court appointees. To paraphrase the senator from the land of fruits and nuts, it is not acceptable to impart your personal views on judicial decisions if you are on a lower court, but it is permissible if you are on the Supreme Court.
No wonder Hugh Hewitt calls her brainless.
Boxer notwithstanding, the perception of the Democrats is that it is permissible to change the Constitution with your personal views, while Republicans do not tolerate such opinions. This difference in views results in Democrats obstructing conservative nominees because they think the nominee will apply their personal views (which they oppose), while Republicans obstruct liberal nominees because they know the nominee will do so. This is why the bench record of the nominee is so important – it reveals their views on the Constitution, either as a pliable, malleable document or as fixed, static foundation.
I prefer the latter. They are more humble, as they think themselves incapable of foreseeing all the difficulties that will result from their decision to change the law unilaterally.
Now that Lance has won a record 7th Tour de France in a row, I guess it would be appropriate to bring out a banner I posted on his third victory.
Congratulations again, Lance.
A few points on today’s cowardly strike:
- THANK GOD the bombers were incompetent in their explosives construction.
- This is the information boon of which professional intelligence analysts dream. No deaths, no injuries, and practically no-cost intel? What’s not to love?
- The duplicated strike plan indicates the head of this Medusa is still attached, even though the serpent locks are being cut & burned. The forensics of the unexploded bombs hopefully will provide the necessary means of striking the neck.
- Again, no injuries or deaths. THANK GOD!
The incompetence of the terrorists (or Divine Intervention?) should be seen as a blessing.