Is Louisiana A State?

Share

Watching the coverage of the devastation caused by Katrina, I am left in a state of absolute befuddlement over the dirth of knowledge and basic common sense of the reporters, residents, victims and politicians.

America is a unique nation in the world. It is the only nation that is not a nation-state. While Europe is making an attempt to replicate it, American remains the only country that is actually a union of independent and sovereign states. Fifty of them to be precise.

Each state in this country functions with a great degree of independence and self-sufficiency, although there are those who have been trying to destroy that systems in favour of a centralized federal collectivism. When a disaster strikes a state, other than an attack from foreign entities such as happened in New York, it is primarily the responsibility of the state to respond. State and local officials are to assess the situation and marshal that their resources to meet the challenge. This includes, but is not limited to, calling up the state’s National Guard, instituting search and rescue operations, establishing order and security and providing for the basic necessities of life (food, water, shelter and medical assistance). If need be a state-of-emergency may be declared and federal assistance requested. In this case, the Governor MUST make a specific request from the federal government for same. So my first question is, why are people acting as if the President was in control of the State of Louisiana? Does Louisiana not have its own system of government? Where is the Governor and the state’s legislature?

Being a sovereign state, the federal government cannot simply barge in and take control of matters based solely on its belief that it can do better. Even though that is true in the current situation – once the feds took over the situation stabilized – we remain a nation of laws, not of men. Based on the feelings, and I do mean feelings (no one has shut up long enough to think), expressed thus far, many seem to believe that state government is irrelevant and laws exists only when convenient.

Shall we simply declare all state government obsolete and turn over total control to the feds? Shall we make it an official policy that the Rule of Law is the standard in American unless of course the Law is inconvenient? Some may say that this is exactly what has been done for the past several years. If we look and listen to the manner in which people have responded and complained about the situation if Louisiana, this is exactly what most people want.

What the Senate Should Ask John Roberts

Share

Now that we know who President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee is, the buzz has now started over what he thinks. Not about the Constitution mind you. The Democrats and their Leftist brethren are concerned with his views on “key issues”, particularly Abortion.

When will Americans dispense with the notion that a Supreme Court nominee’s personal views on any one or one hundred issues is relevant to his/her qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice. What does matter is the nominee’s view on the Constitution. Namely, does the nominee view the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” or a contract between the people and their government. If a nominee chooses the former, he/she is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court that is. Such a person would be well-suited for the Supreme Court of France or Canada.

This “living, breathing document” nonsense is what has led the Court to engage in Constitutional Amendment via judicial fiat. The Court’s duty is to decide cases based solely on the U.S. Constitution; not personal feelings, public opinion, judicial precedent, or the interests of social justice. Where the Constitution is silent, the court has no authority on the issue. When the court is engaged in judicial review, which is to say, reviewing Acts of the legislature, they are to base such review, again, on the Constitution. Where no Constitutional authority can be found, the court must find the Act unconstitutional. Prior court decisions are not part of the Constitution and have no more authority than one gives them. These decisions may not serve as the basis for deciding cases before the court however the court may take judicial notice thereof and make adequate reference to same.

With that said, I don’t care how a judge feels about a specific issue. All I need know is how he/she views the Constitution. For it is clear to me that anyone who views the Constitution as a “living, breathing document” naturally believes that the Court has the authority to create laws and rights where non exists; that the Court must step in and act when the legislature has failed to do so. Those who hold this view do so because they believe, like the late Senator Fullbright, that the Constitution unduly limits their ability to do for the people what they know is best. This is not social justice. This is judicial tyranny.

Do we really want people on the Supreme Court who believe that their world-view must take the place of and fill the perceived holes in the Constitution of the United States of America?

The Left's Indecent "Dissent"

Share

With all of the caterwauling over the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it seems necessary to visit the facts for just a moment.

If you have ever read Alice in Wonderland, you are familiar with the following exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty concerning the obvious meaning of words:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” —Louis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland.

Humpty Dumpty’s philosophy is the epitome of how Leftists argue this and all other issues. So maybe we should come to an accurate understanding of certain terms used and often misused, in this debate.

Guantamamo Bay – This is not a prison facility. It is a U.S. Naval/Air station that has exited since February 1903 wherein a prison facility was erected in 2001 for the sole purpose of detaining and interrogating known terror suspects and Illegal Enemy Combatants. Leftists understand the distinction however their calls for the closure of “Guantanamo Bay” as opposed to the “prison facility” on the base, is a relic of Cold War socialist hostility towards U.S. power. Many Leftists have never been comfortable with the U.S. presence in Cuba and this feeling grew more strident in the wake of the 1959 communist revolution which ushered in the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Leftists generally believe that the treaty(s) that originally gave the U.S. the right to reside in Guantanamo Bay, were, as a result of revolution, moot. In their view the base should have been vacated and returned to Cuba. The U.S. on the other hand has continued to pay the Cuban Government the agreed upon lease amount on an annual basis. There is no evidence that Castro’s government has ever cashed the checks.

Illegal Enemy Combatant – This is not an Enemy Prisoner of War. This is an individual captured while engaged in combat with U.S. forces who cannot be readily identified with the warring nation. Illegal Enemy Combatants do not fight while wearing uniforms or openly carrying weapons. Additionally their targets include both military personnel as well as known civilian non-combatants. They masquerade as civilians for strategic purposes; conducting war by subterfuge. For this reason they are not covered under the Geneva Conventions respecting the treatment of “Prisoners of War.” Leftists seek to have these individuals classified as Prisoners of War based in part on a flawed use of Article 4, Section 2 which states that Prisoners of War includes “members of militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied…” What they fail to accept is that Section 2 goes on to state that such persons must be a) commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, b) have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, c) carry arms openly, and d) conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Absent their meeting these criteria, the only legitimate classification for said persons is that of Illegal Enemy Combatants. While the U.S. does not torture persons held under its authority, the primary reason for making this distinction is to combat the belief that such persons must be afforded the jurisprudential protections applicable to Prisoners of War which includes, but is not limited to, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (See Geneva Conventions, Article 3, Section 1(d)).

Torture – There is considerable reluctance on the part of the Left to define this word. The problem with applying a definition is that the definition limits the duplicitous, Humpty Dumpty manner in which they choose to argue. A word that means nothing ultimately means everything. In brief, “torture”, is the intentional infliction of great physical pain and/or extraordinary mental distress. I will presume that anyone reading this is of at least average intelligence therefore I will not condescend to define “great physical pain and/or extraordinary mental distress.” The Left however believes or perhaps pretends to believe that “torture” includes anything that a detainee finds unpleasant. Needless to say, this deliberate use of ambiguity is convenient for anyone wishing to make a political statement. Unfortunately it also aids and abets this country’s enemies in the process by creating the impression that the U.S. is exactly the same as its enemies yesterday and today. Note that members of Al Queda (among others) have been instructed to make false accusations of torture against their captors. Although any and all such accusations must be thoroughly investigated, it is appalling that the Left elects to uncritically accept them as unequivocal truth.

It appears that the Left’s abhorrence of definitions impedes their ability to understand that there is a difference between a question and an accusation. They level accusations against the U.S. government and when met with criticism they retreat into the fortress of victimhood while asking, “Do we not have the right to question our government?” Accusing another of a wrong is not a question. One’s opponent need not answer. For when an accusation is made the burden of proof rests with the accuser to prove it, not the accused to disprove it. Yet with every passing day this administration is asked to disprove accusations of “torture” which are all too often the fanciful elevation of any inconvenience to the level of horrors visited upon the prisoners at Auschwitz.

While I would like to believe that Leftists have America’s best interests at heart, that their sole purpose for accusing the U.S. government of crimes against humanity and comparing the U.S. government to the Soviets, Nazi’s and Pol Pot is to force a policy shift in the interests of improving America’s image around the world, reason, logic, facts and evidence leads me to another, rather disheartening conclusion. When considering the totality of their baseless accusations, virulent protestations and feigned outrages, one can only conclude that their views on this matter are shaped by their hatred of the current administration. It seems rather obvious that their desire to harm the Bush administration is more important that their desire to seek the truth. Many Leftists understand that the consequences of their actions include increasing the danger faced by U.S. forces and fomenting the hateful passions of America’s enemies the world over yet it does not seem to matter. George Bush, his administrations and to a lesser degree America, is the enemy and in that respect the Left’s behaviour is right out of the Sun Tzu/Machiavellian playbook, “Whatever weakens your enemy strengthens you.”

Deep Delusions

Share

Many in the media are salivating over the recent revelation by former FBI official, W. Mark Felt, that he was in fact the “Deep Throat” mentioned by Woodward and Bernstein in their Washington Post article which ultimately lead to the resignation of President Richard Nixon more than 30 years ago. I am not amazed that they would be so giddy over this after all, they get the opportunity to relive the glory days when they could present stories under the veil of “objectivity” and “journalistic integrity” while knowing full well that they were largely nothing more than 60’s era Leftists activists sans Bohemian attire. No, what amazes me is the fact that they are still attempting to present this entire matter as a disinterested search for truth in the interest of rooting out corruption in government. Pardon me if I seem a tad incredulous.

This is not to say that the actions of President Nixon were consistent with our expectations of same where government officials are concerned. But were those actions any different than those of William J. Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Lindon B. Johnson, Harry S. Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt? In short, the answer is a resounding, No! Anyone who believes that the media is interested in finding and redressing corruption in government need only consider their utter desertion from the battlefield during the Clinton era. Rather than investigating numerous issues of impropriety, the media establishment (with the obvious exception of those referred to as “conservative media”) spent this period reacting to and investigating the motives of those who made charges against the Clintons and the Clinton Administration.

The fact is, the media establishment is as partisan today as it was yesteryear. They continue to wear the mask of “journalistic objectivity” which is nothing more than a euphemism for the intellectual dishonesty that they so flagrantly perpetrate upon the public mind.

Make no mistake about it, the identity of “Deep Throat” is a legitimate news story. But the continued spin which paints W. Mark Felt’s actions as well of those of Woodward and Bernstein, as courageous and heroic, is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Dictators Among Us

Share

When considering some of the judicial decisions handed down recently, particularly from the federal bench, I am laboring to understand both why and how we have allowed the judicial branch of government to become our omnipotent dictators.

Much of this stems from the idea that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution. Well, I have read the Constitution several times, together with the Federalist as well as a host of available data from the framers and I am at a loss to find any reference to the Supreme Court being solely vested with the power to “interpret” the Constitution. [Please note that when I use the word “Constitution” I include both the original document and the amendments thereto as amendments once ratified become part of the document as though included in the original draft thereof.]

Perhaps we can begin with the word “interpret”. The term embodies such acts as explaining that which is unclear, generally foreign, in terms common to the listener. Am I to understand then that the Constitution was written in language so ambiguous, so foreign to the predominantly English-speaking American people that they should require a cadre of all-seeing, all-knowing wise men/women to “interpret” or translate it?

Unfortunately this term, as used in this case, is intended to mean that the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to “reinterpret” the Constitution in a manner more conducive to our times. This view places the Supreme Court, and in fact the whole of the judiciary, in the roll of dictator, rather than impartial arbiter. A dictator maintains power by being both unaccountable to the people and unimpeded in ambitions by the law, for the dictator can, whenever the laws stand in opposition to his goals, change the law by force of will. Clearly our judiciary in more ways than not, are unaccountable to the governed and whenever they find that the law, whether it be the Constitution or acts of legislators, is inconsistent with their views on “social justice” and desires for same, have the power and the consent of their Leftist enablers to reinterpret the law. We are no longer governed by the Rule of Law. We are now governed by the Rule of Lawmakers.

This development was feared by members of the original Constitutional Convention who raised objections to the “authority of the proposed Supreme Court”:

“The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States,
which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the
legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the
Constitution will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may
think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to
the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as
it is dangerous…..the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United
States will be uncontrollable and remediless.”

It is interesting to note that Alexander Hamilton dismissed these objections as “made up of false reasoning upon misconceived facts.” It is then to our advantage that Hamilton’s view did not carry. The Supreme Court was not vested with any power to construe the Constitution beyond the expressed letter of the law and when the desires of the people or the acts of legislators are at variance with the Constitution, the Constitution shall be the superior.

Were it the intention of the framers to place the Supreme Court in a superior position to the Constitution, there would have been no need for Article V which delineates the amendment process. They could simply have dispensed with the debates regarding the propriety of super majorities and simply made it possible to change this document with a mere vote of five.

The Constitution was not written to be an unalterable document covering every conceivable issue known or to come. Rather, it was intended to be the guide. The Framers understood that times would come when changes would be necessary and had the wisdom and the humility to include a procedure for accomplishing such changes. This procedure did not include any mention of the judiciary.

Just as the Renaissance led the people to understand that they had unwittingly surrendered their own innate common sense and sound judgment to men of the cloth, we must also take control of our lives and dispense with the idea that the Constitution is such a sacred and ambiguous document that it should only be read and can only be understood by lawyers in black robes.

Paved With Good Intentions

Share

It seems that all that can be said of the incident in the Atlanta courtroom has already been said. I still however feel the need to weigh-in on this matter.

This situation occurred not because an assailant was bent on committing an act of violence. That is to be expected. Rather, the fault lies with those who, for reasons other than a concern for public safety, allowed this individual to be inadequately guarded. Simply stated, the guard was a small stature female deputy escorting an unrestrained male suspect of considerable size with a known propensity for violent behavior. Why? Because, there are people in our world who live with the delusion that men and women are equal in every respect. It is delusional because, guided by the simple definition of delusion – maintaining a belief despite clear and convincing evidence to the contrary – common sense should have told them that this deputy was severely outmatched. It would have been inadvisable to place a male deputy of equal size in this situation. As the evidence of the past week shows, it was criminal to place a much smaller female deputy there.

Despite their lofty intentions we are yet again confronted with the logical result of the policies of Leftists. Yet again, I fear that they will refuse to learn from experience.

Leftist Double-Speak

Share

Democrats love euphemisms. Their latest is the use of the expression “roll-back” to describe the action of increasing Federal tax rates.

They find it irritating that we refer to the “roll-back” as a tax increase because in times past, they were able to use words in the manner most suitable to their position. Humpty-Dumpty would be proud of this Looking Glass dialect.

Now some are pointing to the fact that when W came into office in 2001, he signed an executive order that cancelled one signed previously by Clinton. Clinton’s EO, which was intended to drastically cut arsenic levels in drinking water, was signed in the last two weeks of his presidency, or 7-years and 50 weeks after he took office. It is important to note that when W singed an EO canceling Clinton’s the Clinton EO had not yet been implemented. Therefore, arsenic levels were not increased by W rather they were simply frozen at their existing levels. Had the Clinton EO been implemented (even partially) it would be correct to refer to W’s action as an increase in arsenic levels.

By contrast the 2001 Tax Cut has already been implemented. Any “roll-back” would result in an actual increase in the Federal tax rate. This means that one would be paying more after the “roll-back” than one is paying at the current rates.

If this is confusing to you, you can now appreciate the logic of Leftist double-speak.