Consequences of Bad Judicial Appointments

Barack Obama has made it clear he would ignore qualifications and go for judges who would support his liberal agenda, regardless of whether they go against the Constitution. In fact, almost all liberal agenda items go against the Constitution.

We need judges who will interpret law--not make law--and who will respect and uphold our Constitution as the highest law of the land...the standard to which all other laws must be held.

Deciphering the Debate

With both John McCain and Barack Obama dodging the straightforward answers at the last presidential debate, it can be challenging to decipher what was said.

In a special edition of the Focus Action Election Update, Stuart Shepard and Carrie Gordon Earll examine how the presidential contenders handled a debate question concerning Roe v. Wade and the nation's courts.

The Despotism of the Judiciary

American Minute from William J. Federer

The U.S. Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas as a Justice on the Supreme Court on OCTOBER 15, 1991.

When questioned by Senator Thurmond on judicial activism during the hearings, Clarence Thomas stated: "The role of a judge is a limited one. It is to...interpret the Constitution, where called upon, but at no point to impose his or her will or...opinion in that process."

On OCTOBER 15, 1788, James Madison warned: "As the courts are generally the last in making the decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary department paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended and can never be proper."

Jefferson wrote September 11, 1804: "The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional...not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive...would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Abraham Lincoln stated March 4, 1861: "If the policy of the Government upon vital questions...is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."

William J. Federer is a nationally recognized author, speaker, and president of Amerisearch, Inc, which is dedicated to researching our American heritage. The American Minute radio feature looks back at events in American history on the dates they occurred, is broadcast daily across the country and read by thousand on the internet.

Judge Thomas: Racial Preference Unconstitutional

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is flirting with making the media as mad at him as they are at Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

They already have been, you say? Well, I guess he doesn't have much to lose, then.

Thomas stated today that racial preferences and quotas are unconstitutional.

From Breitbart.com:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday that African-Americans are better served by colorblind programs than affirmative action.

Thomas, addressing leaders of historically black colleges, said affirmative action "has become this mantra and there almost has become this secular religiosity about it. I think it almost trumps thinking."

A longtime opponent of race-based preferences in hiring and school admissions, Thomas said, "Just from a constitutional standpoint, I think we're going to run into problems if we say the Constitution says we can consider race sometimes."

Imagine that: that the Constitution requires that we treat all people equally, regardless of skin color. What seems elementary to most Americans must be explicitly laid out for the liberal elite.

We shouldn't prefer white people for jobs and schools...and we shouldn't prefer black people for jobs and schools, either.

What a concept! Almost sounds...American.

Obama Slammed for Justice Thomas Slam

A Barack Obama supporter is defending Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — the only African American U.S. Supreme Court Justice — regarding the Illinois senator's recent criticism of the judge.

Obama told the audience at Saturday [8-16-08]'s faith forum in California that he would not have appointed Thomas, saying, "I don't think he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker."

But Cybercast News reports that Obama adviser Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law scholar at Pepperdine University, and former legal counsel in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush says he is "disappointed" by Obama's remarks.

"Justice Clarence Thomas is one of the best appointments that have been made... he's the only justice on the Supreme Court who, prior to his appointment, had recognized the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."

Justice Clarence Thomas is the second African American to serve on the nation's highest court, after Justice Thurgood Marshall.

From The Rite Wing

Obama's Judges

What kind of Supreme Court judges would Barack Obama appoint as president?

From NewsMax:

When asked by CNN in May whether any current justices would be models for his nominees, Obama replied that he considered Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter to be sensible judges. All three voted in the majority in the child rape case, as did Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens.

If he considers Breyer, Bader Ginsburg and Souter to be "sensible" judges, I'd hate to see his idea of "ideal" judges.

The rape case referenced in the quote was the one which struck down a Louisiana law allowing capital punishment for rapists when the victim is under 12.

These justices were also on the wrong side of the "read the terrorists their rights on the battlefield" decision, the recent gun rights decision, and pretty much every other ultra-liberal decisions that's come out of the Supreme Court in recent years.

As decidedly un-enthused as I am about John McCain, if only for the issue of judicial appointments we need to support him. I don't have a high degree of confidence that McCain's picks would be the kind of Constitutional judges we need, but they would almost certainly be better than anyone Obama, the most liberal congressman of 2007, would pick.

McCain might stumble into an okay nomination or maybe even a good one; Obama's would all undoubtedly be devastating for America.

Supreme Court Affirms Second Amendment

As my fellow Dakota Voice publisher Dr. Theo has already highlighted, the U.S. Supreme Court has articulated and affirmed what most Americans (outside liberal circles) have known for more than 200 years: Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, per the Second Amendment.

From the Dallas Morning News:

The Supreme Court tossed out a handgun ban in the nation's capital on Thursday, holding for the first time that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to self-defense and gun ownership.

But in its first hard look at gun rights in nearly 70 years, the court also held – in a narrow, 5-4 ruling – that the right is subject to some reasonable limitations.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts

At the heart of this case was the 32-year ban D.C. has had on handguns.

The Second Amendment, by its language, is primarily focused on the security of the state. Sometimes in dire circumstances the people may be required to defend the country from outside threat. And in the event tyrannical elements from within our country ever seized power, the people would need their arms to take back their country.

In expounding on the "militia" statement in the Second Amendment, Scalia said that unlike armies and navies, "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," and that "the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

With regard to the reason why this militia is necessary to the security of a free state, Scalia said, "First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections...Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny."

In ages past, firearms were often necessary to obtain food, and this has certainly been a justification for the necessity of the right to bear arms, but it is not the primary one.

But the right to self-defense is an even more fundamental right, one going back to the days of swords and even clubs. Police are the proper authority for dealing with the criminal element, but as a former cop I can tell you, the police can't be everywhere at once. And a lot can happen in the several minutes it takes to respond to a 911 call.

Of self-defense, Scalia said:

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.

I haven't read the full decision yet, but the limitations mentioned by Scalia seem reasonable. Just as you can't yell "fire" in a theater or slander someone, there are reasonable limits to everything. I don't think people need a nuke or an aircraft carrier for home defense.

SCOTUS Upholds the Right of the People

June 26, 2008 will probably not soon resonate with the same significance and clarity as July 4, 1776, but perhaps it should. Today the rights of a free people, above the vagaries of a political class, have been reasserted and affirmed. We the People will be ruled only by God and ourselves, and when elected officials seek to rule otherwise we will have the means to resist, exactly as the Founders had intended.


According to Fox News,

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

You can read the entire opinion here, but what it comes down to is whether the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to be a comprehensive list of rights granted to the People and that could be changed according to the thinking of the times. Or, are the Constitution and Bill of Rights written to constrain government, the natural enemy of the People, the rights being self-evident and flowing from the hand of God.

Church Officials Go to the IRS Requesting a Church Tax Inquiry

Copeland's Eagle Mountain International Church Takes Unprecedented Step in a Good Faith Effort to Respond to Senator Grassley

DALLAS, April 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Eagle Mountain International Church/Kenneth Copeland Ministries (KCM) took the unprecedented and historic step of requesting the IRS to undertake an inquiry of the Church. On Monday, April 7th John Copeland the CEO of the Church and KCM, personally delivered a letter to the IRS offices in downtown Dallas.

John Copeland explained to reporters, "We told the IRS in a letter that we welcome them to come and make inquiry of us and we will provide answers to the IRS regarding questions that Senator Grassley has. The Church desires to protect its and all other churches' 1st Amendment rights, and by this action, we believe we are doing just that."

For more than 40 years the Church/KCM has operated with integrity and in compliance with the tax laws and government regulations. KCM has no problem with giving the government the information Senator Grassley has requested, so long as the Church's constitutional rights are respected. It has always been KCM's position that there is a process already in place for the government, through the IRS, to obtain the information Senator Grassley has requested.

The IRS is the appropriate agency to receive this information, subject to processes and procedures set out in the federal tax laws that apply to all churches and to all private taxpayer information. By following these processes and procedures, which Senator Grassley himself helped write, the Church's rights will be protected, but the Senator will still be able to obtain all the information he is demanding by requesting it from the IRS after it has concluded a church tax inquiry.

If the Church is not given the protections from disclosure afforded by the federal tax laws, the Church is concerned that private church documents and information produced to Senator Grassley could be used in a manner that interferes with the Church's religious freedoms. The Church believes that the Senator's demands are inconsistent with longstanding principles that require the separation of Church and State, as well as Supreme Court rulings that hold that the government may not inquire into the very nature of a church's religious beliefs and practices.

To view a copy of the letter delivered to the IRS and other Church responses to Senator Grassley, go to www.kcm.org

Will the Second Amendment Be Upheld?

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson

The United States Supreme Court will hear opening remarks in the case of District of Columibia v. Heller tomorrow, March 18th. A Colorado University law professor, Scott Moss, believes this will be a seminal case that will finally decide whether the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals or only to the States' right to form militias.

The case is that of a citizen of Washington, DC, Richard Heller, claiming a constitutional right to keep a weapon, specifically a hand-gun, for his personal protection. The District of Columbia has some of the most restictive laws regarding legal gun ownership of any municipality and have denied his application.

The case of the District of Columbia versus Heller not only will decide whether Washington, D.C., can keep its handgun ban, but ultimately will determine the fate of gun control laws across the country. Remarkably, this case is likely to be the first time the Supreme Court, in its over two centuries of interpreting the constitution, truly will have to decide, once and for all, whether the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ rights to own guns or protects only states’ rights to maintain armed police forces and militias, writes Professor Moss.

All of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights pertain to individual rights and restrain the actions of the federal government, so an interpretation of the Second Amendment as anything other than an individual right would be in contravention of the spirit of the other articles. We can only hope and pray that the current court led by Justice Roberts will adhere to a direct constructionist interpretation of what seems to be plain English to most Americans and decide on the right of individuals to keep arms for protection and to prevent government tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson said with only a bit of satire,

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."