Publius' Forum

A Blue Finger Salute
- By Robin Mullins Boyd

Today is a great day. I watched the live reports from Iraq with a sense of awe and a profound sense of relief. The images of the Iraqi people dancing in the streets holding up their blue inked fingers brought tears to my eyes. Watching videos of Iraqi women lining up to cast their vote made my heart soar. I enjoyed watching all the reports from reporters displaying a genuine respect for the people that braved the terrorists' threats of violence to let their voices be heard. I even enjoyed watching Geraldo............
Click HERE for full Op Ed

Just a quick note to congratulate the people of Iraq with their great success at the polls today.
This is a wonderful step forward for a Democratic Iraq.

Goodbye Reality! The Tough Life of a Liberal Blogger.
- By Justin Darr

It is difficult to imagine how anyone could not celebrate the first free Iraqi election in over 50 years. Even France, which vehemently opposed the United States' liberation of Iraq, set its differences aside to praise the people of Iraq for their strength and bravery as they take this first step toward true freedom. However, there are people in this world who are not celebrating this great event. No, I am not talking about the usual folks we know oppose freedom not just in Iraq, but across the globe, such as North Korea's Kim Jung Il, Osama Bin Laden, and a few Nazis hiding in Argentina, but others who will attack the successful Iraqi election with the same hostility, distortion, and hatred for the truth as the tyrants above. And, they are as close as your computer. I am talking about the Internet's Liberal Bloggers............
Click HERE for full Op Ed

It is Harder to Preserve Than to Obtain Liberty
- By Rudy Takala

Since the presidential inauguration, long-existing latent rifts in the Republican Party have become noticeably more apparent. In his inaugural address, Bush said, "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world." As Peggy Noonan wrote in response, "This world is not heaven." .........
Click HERE for full Op Ed

If You Can't Make Sense Of Something (Learn To Read Between The Lines)
- By R.A. Hawkins

As I wrote two weeks ago, the primary goal of Al-Qaeda was to put us in a position where we would start a very broad war and rile the ire of the entire region. That was supposed to cause the citizens of the corrupt regimes to topple their governments so a new Caliphate could rise to power. Of course it was supposed to be a Sunni-Wahabbi Caliphate. It looks as though their dreams have been dashed upon the rocks of reality. So sorry!.........
Click HERE for full Op Ed

Actor, Danny Glover, removed from movie?
- By Warner Todd Huston

Hollywood has realized something, it appears, at least on a certain level. Wild eyed, Anti-American "activists" like Danny Glover do not sell movies. I just saw a very interesting TV commercial advertising a new DVD release of the 1990 film "Predator 2" starring Danny Glover in the lead role which just might confirm my claim.

I won't bother describing the movie as it was eminently forgettable and quite beside the point of this Op Ed. But what piqued my interest in this commercial is that Glover does not appear on it but for a split second yet he is the star of the movie. Is that not amazing? A commercial advertising a movie without selling the star, without even showing him as being in the thing?.........
Click HERE for full Op Ed

Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World -By Hugh Hewitt

Although he claims the title of the Zeus of blogers and imagines he sits atop the Olympus of Electronic Media from whence he liberally dispenses nuggets of electronic dogma to his eagerly waiting subjects through his own blog, unimaginatively titled hughhewitt.com, and since he has been on numerous TV shows, radio shows (one of which is his own nationally syndicated effort) and has written and been the subject of umpteen articles, I have never heard of him before. In fact, I'm amazed anyone has since no one follows politics much in this great country. But, someone dropped his book, Blog, in the hallway where I work, so I have decided to review it ... for some reason.

Now, I must disclose that all I have read is the title because it is so long that it qualifies as a hefty read all in itself. I mean, really. Get this title. "Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World". Jeeze, what is up with that title? I am sure the title probably went on longer than that but I just couldn't sit through it and had to quit reading. It just made me so tired.

After all, doesn't this title explain all you need to know about how arrogant this Howlit guy is? I've seen shorter titles from 17th century philosophy treatise that were written by people who were so arrogant that they imagined they really knew the meaning of what God, the Universe AND human nature is.

I hope that no one uses this link to buy Blog . And I would like it known that I am just as much into this internet thing as anyone else. I would also like to make sure people don't think that I changed my old web page style to this new blog format just because of this Howlit, guy. I heard about blogs before I ever saw this stinkin book, ya know. I have had a lot of people visit my site and not all of them are in my family, I'll have you know.

Anyway, when I get past the title, I'll let you all know if this really is the mark of the harbinger of a new mode of instant news management that Hewn Howlit claims it is.

By the way, I just heard that Dan Rather has some kind of problem with some documents? I'll look into this thing and see what it is all about and try to get back to you all.

Posted by Jordan Whooseits

...well. OK, it's ME Warner Todd Huston. But I can't be connected with this blog stuff. I have degrees, man. I'm IMPORTANT!
An explaination of this parody

Senate Democrats Prepare to Block Conservative Judges
- By John T. Plecnik

As millions of Americans watched Senate Democrats grill Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings for secretary of state, many asked, "Why fight a forgone conclusion?" We all knew Rice would be confirmed. Colin Powell's heir apparent passed the Senate by a vote of 85 to 13. Notable detractors included former Klansman Robert Byrd, "Teddy" Kennedy, and John Kerry.

Have the Democrats lost their collective mind? Why oppose the inevitable? Simple. This is the preseason for the biggest game in town: selecting the makeup of our next Supreme Court. And make no mistake, the playoffs are swift approaching.........
Click HERE for full Op Ed

Welcome to the Blog portion of the Publius' Forum. From time to time I will interject these sort of quick takes on the world in which we live between the contributions of our writers. I will call them QUICK TAKES, curiously enough.

An acquaintance of mine recently went to buy a car and wanted to pay with $29,000 cash. It made the Car Dealer go nuts. He said that he had all kinds of forms to fill out for the IRS and FBI for such a large cash payment, and that he also need the buyer to go to a bank and convert the cash into a Cashier's Check before he would take it.

This business caused the guy to get all bristly over his "loss of rights" in being able to buy a car with cash without molestation by the government. He felt the government had no right to force all these rules upon him and I have a tendency to agree with him. He also wondered why his "property rights" (in the form of the money) was being violated.

However, he suffered under some misconceptions about the Founders as well as current government I thought would be instructive here.

Property had two distinct meanings in the Founder's day
Property:
1- From root Latin proprius- meaning proper, particular to, appropriate to an individual (giving a moral meaning).
2- From root Latin domus- House, coupled to lordship which was bestowed by the King (a government meaning).

Notice property did not mean YOUR property alone, but it was linked to propriety (morals) and grants from the King (government).

Private Property:
Privately owned but governed by the law of the land. Therefore not entirely free of government control.

Even John Locke's (English Philosopher that many Founders referred to for his theories on Natural Rights and government) ideas of what government was for centered on three ideas, none of which gave the citizen total license.
1-The duty of every man to praise, honor and glory God does not enter directly into man's social relations.
2-Mankind must be preserved (the word "ought" treated as a command) "Man has not the liberty to destroy himself... for Men being all the workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker.. made to last during his, not one another's pleasure."
3-Being obliged by nature to live in society he has no right to destroy it. Hence the need for law and government.

What I am saying here is that even from day one, we have had government involvement in private property that has ebbed and flowed from over involvement to less. We are at an over time, I fear.

However, history has also shown that our government HAS curtailed over reach as time goes on. We have had MUCH worse violations of freedom and liberty in the USA in times past and wars past. The Civil War, WWI and WWII had FAR worse violations. (see my longer OP ED on this subjectBush, Destroyer of Civil Liberties?)

So, while I also worry about this business I do not necessarily feel it is the end of the world. We are right to keep pressure on to stop such over reach, though.

Lastly, he equated the rule where a business being given a $10,000 and over cash outlay is required to alert the IRS as something connected to the war on terror, but it was actually connected to the "war" on drugs to stop drug dealers from buying big ticket items for cash to clean their ill gotten cash.

(For info on the ideas of the Founders and what their definitions and influences were I reccomend the book "Novus Ordo Seclorum", by Forrest McDonald, U. of Kansas Press, 1985)

-Warner Todd Huston

"Equal rights" for some, fewer rights for others
- By Michael M. Bates

On Friday, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich took time out from his breathtakingly courageous crusade against certain video games to sign what's described as a "gay rights" law. You'll forgive me for not cheering...........
Click HERE for full Op Ed

Support A Stupid Chief Justice By Rudy Takala


...Chief Justice William Rehnquist administered the oath of office to President Bush last January 20th, making his first public appearance since mid-October. He proceeded to shake the president's hand, but left the podium before Bush could finish his speech. His tracheotomy tube, which helps him breath, was visible; at eighty years old, his retirement is near. Rehnquist has been the chief justice of the Supreme Court since 1986; following his departure, a nomination must be made for a new chief justice of the Court.............................................(posted 01/23/05)

The Saga of SpongeBob Squarepants By David Huntwork


...Unless you have been living in a cave the last few days you are aware of those wacky Christian Right nutjobs taking inexplicable swipes at the beloved cartoon character SpongeBob and the notion that we should all simply love and respect each other. What could possibly be wrong with that?r.............................................(posted 01/23/05)

Sunni Dispositions (Demanding Darwinian Results) By R.A. Hawkins


...Well here we go. We have another election coming up that will be claimed to be illegitimate. The liberals have gotten that phrase down pat. The Sunnis are having their votes repressed by the terrorists in an attempt to create tension, division and ultimately civil war.............................................(posted 01/23/05)

The Rise of the Homosexual Super Citizen By Justin Darr


..."All pigs are created equal, except some pigs are more equal than others" wrote George Orwell in his classic "Animal Farm." While it is always fun poking fun at Stalin being a pig, applying Owellian metaphors to American society will usually do nothing but get a person called "paranoid" by their friends, and a "ranting lunatic" by most others............................................(posted 01/23/05)

OK, I admit that my headline is a grabber. And I also have to apologize to a certain extent for using a shocker as a title. After all, both sides of the abortion debate have been all too prone to the shock tactic to support their position or demean their opponent's. But, in this case, it is an all too obvious conclusion at which to arrive.

Perhaps by now you have heard the story coming out of Colorado? Sacred Heart of Mary Church, a Catholic church in Boulder, Colorado, has been involved in the practice of obtaining the ashes of the bodies of late-term aborted fetuses and burying them according to Catholic custom, a "proper burial" as I have seen it put in one report of the incident.

Apparently this arrangement between the Crist Mortuary and Sacred Heart of Mary Church has been going on since 2001 but has only lately come to the attention of the public. And Doctor Warren Hern, a well-known late-term abortion practitioner, appears to be quite upset over the revelation.

He has released a statement in which he excoriates the Church for its actions. "Anti-abortion zealots, Catholic or otherwise, have shown that they will stop at nothing to inflict guilt and to compound the grief, sadness and sense of loss that these women experience," Hern said. He continued with, "These fanatics simply cannot leave other people alone with their most intimate sorrow."

This is a most interesting statement from Doctor Hearn, indeed. As I said in my admission at the start of this editorial, this I see this statement as an admission by Doctor Hern that he is responsible for the murder of uncounted babies. After all, why else would he be so defensive about the Church's actions? Why would he be so upset?

Is it not the stance of abortion supporters that both an aborted fetus and its live counter part is simply an "collection of unviable cells"? (Unless the Mother decides that they are viable, mind you) Aren't they claiming that the pre-born does not qualify as human? ( Unless, of course, the Mother makes the decision that it is) Aren't they always saying that the fetus is not really a life? (Until the Mother decides that it is, naturally)

So, since these ashes are the result of an expulsion of unwanted, inhuman, unnecessary lumps of cells, why is Doctor Hern so fired up? After all, he has called the members of this Church "zealots" who wish to "inflict guilt" presumably on the women who had the abortions. He has admitted that the women who have had abortions experience a "most intimate sorrow". This emotional language is quite at odds with the claims from abortion supporters that the detritus of an abortion does not even qualify as a human being. Why would one be so upset over the simple removal of unwanted cells? Does anyone get upset over losing their tonsils or in excising a tumor? No, they generally do not.

But the Doctor is claiming all sorts of emotional turmoil in the minds of a woman who has had an abortion. And studies show he is right to think so as it turns out. Consequently, with this direct admission that an abortion causes all manner of grief, sadness, loss and sorrow, he must also be admitting he adds to this grief by his actions as an abortionist. I mean, if there truly is so much emotional grief over the loss of the fetus how can anyone imagine that the Doctor has not been involved in causing this grief himself? And, if there is such grief we simply have to come to the conclusion that we are, indeed, actually killing these babies when conducting abortion procedures or grief, guilt and sadness could not possibly result with such a simple procedure if aborted fetuses truly are just unviable cells.

Therefore, the Doctor, with his emotional proclamations, is admitting to being a killer. Why else would he be so upset at the simple actions of Sacred Heart of Mary Church that has been carried on in relative secret and obscurity for over three years? Why get so upset over what abortion advocates equate to the removal of an unwanted tumor? Why does he feel it necessary to make these wild-eyed proclamations? Is the guilt eating at him?

By Warner Todd Huston

With President Bush about to be given the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, and maybe more than one, we will hear the term "Strict constructionist" bandied about by both the right and the left during the arguments back and forth. But just what does this term mean?

After all, it can be legitimately said that those on the right want the same thing in their judges as those on the left want of theirs; candidates who would support their ideas and directions. They certainly wouldn't appreciate a Judge who would rule counter to their thoughts, now would they? So, are conservatives being hypocrites to use the strict constructionist terminology as a qualification for judicial candidates?

The right uses the term as a sort of litmus test for judicial candidates, though maybe it should be considered an anti-litmus test. As it stands, the right generally sees a strict constructionist as someone who does not utilize his personal ideology to adjudicate cases but needs only a thorough knowledge of Constitutional history to do so. But the idea of strict constructionism can be a tad problematic when looked at closely.

Let's be honest. There are many things in the United States' history of which the Constitution approved that we conservatives would certainly not endorse today. Need we be reminded that slavery was a Constitutional right in the original document? Need we recall that the vote was not extended to all citizens equally in the original document? Later than the founding we even had the disastrous idea of prohibition added to the Constitution that had to be struck down. So, the Constitution did have some things in it that we "strict constructionists" would not support at this time.

So what the heck do we mean when we say strict constructionists?

Strict constructionists realize and accept that past precedent at times changed original intent of the Founders in post Founder's era law adjudication and they do not necessarily want to over turn all post Founder precedent back to original intent. So, in effect, they do only want to use what they want of the Founder's desires. But the distinction that eliminates the charge of hypocrisy is that strict constructionists want to first consider what it is that the Founders wanted and then make the decision if it makes sense in that light to change or stray from what those Founders desired.

Another difference, and this is an important one, is the "living document" claim that the left uses to justify their desire to rewrite law to suit their situational desires. They say that the Founders realized that things would change and so they wanted the Constitution to be able to change with those times. This is true to a degree, but is not true to the extent that the left wants to use to stretch the Constitution and alter it with their every whim. The Founders did, of course, realize that the document would need alteration once in a while, hence their provision for amendment, but they certainly did not think that the Constitution should be amended easily or frivolously. George Washington remarked that "... the constitution, which at any time exists till changed by an explicitly and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all." His emphasis on the whole people clearly means that he did not view Judicial activism as a legitimate process for amending the Constitution.

Further, what better way to advocate for total anarchy than to claim that no document is worthy to follow in an untouched state? Can any law be viewed as sacrosanct if we can change it at any given time for what ever frivolous reason we can concoct? Changes in law should be viewed with a jaundiced eye and care should be taken that such changes are proper and legitimate and not just situational.

As to what the Founders thought about the idea of strict constructionism, also called "original intent", we can see their very words from which we can understand that they, themselves, thought that constant reinterpretation was an evil to be avoided. It must first be remembered that a contract must always be interpreted according to the desires of the parties involved in that contract and massaging the terms of agreement is grounds for dissolution of the contract. The Constitution should not be viewed very differently than any other contract. Therefore, when considering Constitutional meaning we must have a thorough knowledge of Constitutional history as well as a grounding in the governmental models and theories held by those who wrote the document in the first place.

Along these lines James Madison, fourth President and recognized as the Father of the Constitution, said, "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in the modern sense." He warns us to look back and discern what the Founder's generation meant when they created our Supreme Law.

Even Thomas Jefferson said in 1823, "On every question of construction, carry [y]ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Jefferson, no fan of the abuse of power by the Courts, worried that we would cast aside the ideas the Founders spent so many agonizing sessions creating and supplant them with temporary political desires and situational ideals that would neither stand the test of time nor the tenets of a moral government.

But certainly times have changed. We have amended the Constitution and some of those amendments did run contrary to what the Founders desired. So where does that leave us with the idea of strict constructionism and original intent as it concerns our actions today? We should expect no less from our Founders than we do of our modern Supreme Court candidates. A detailed knowledge of Constitutional law, an intricate education in the Founder's ideas as well as a general knowledge of the history that the Founders used to formulate their ideas.

What we need are historians as much as Judges. We do not need a Judge who wants to change the world, but one who wants to uphold the Supreme Law of the land.

By Warner Todd Huston