Law on Blog 



[ Links ]
Covenant Media Foundation

[ Blogs That I Read ]
Rabbi Saul
The Blog According to John
Aaron's Baseball Blog
Whilin' Away the Hours
Dr. G's Blog
Le Sabot Post-Moderne Societas Christiana
Just Mark
Contra Tyrannus
View from Peniel
Doug's Blog
40 Bicycles
The Whirlwind Musings of a Reformed Catholic

"The Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." -- Psalm 19:7-8 (ESV) --

Wednesday, June 30, 2004


"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

It's called communism, Comrade Stalin.

"The Cause of the South is the cause of us all." -- Alexander Stephens.

Saturday, June 26, 2004


Well, looks like Michael Moore's movie has come out. I haven't seen the movie, but I probably will based on Phil Hendrie's review. Basically, the quote he gave on his radio show sums it up. "Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature where Truth Burns. Well, yeah, that's basically what happens every time this movie is run." The entire show, including his "interview" with Jeff Dowder, is based on attacking the factual premises of the movie. In essence, the entire movie can be summed up as "THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED!" Incredible how events can change in a little less than three years.

Oh, and by the way, Michael Moore trumpeted on David Letterman that he would debate anyone, anywhere, anytime on the merits of his movie. Well, he won't debate Phil. The producers contacted Moore's people, and they said no. And remember, Phil Hendrie is no political right-winger. He is a liberal Democrat who voted for Clinton twice and Gore in 2000, but who is so disillusioned with his Party that he is on the record that he will vote for President Bush. He has been one of the biggest supporters of Bush since September 11th, and even sicced the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on a Canadian listener when he threatened President Bush. See, this threw Moore's people for a loop, because when he said he was a Democrat, they automatically assumed that he was on their side. Oh, far from it.

As he said, when he was doing an Art Bell parody: "Well, I can see the black hole slowly engulfing this planet...It's a remarkable sight...wait a second...That's not a black hole..and that's not a planet!...It's Michael Moore's mouth sucking in another donut!" (wa-wa-waaaaaaaaaaaa). You might be able to hear it here (some explicit material on the website).

Tuesday, June 22, 2004


Look at what's happened to me.
I can't believe it myself.
Suddenly, I'm up on top of the world.
It should have been somebody else.


Believe it or not,
I'm walking on air.
I never thought I could feel so free.
Flying away
On a wing and a prayer,
Who could it be?
Believe it or not, it's just me.

Just like the light of a new day,
It hit me from out of the blue
Breaking me out of the spell I was in
Making all of my wishes come true.

(Repeat Chorus)

This is too good to be true.
Look at me,
Falling for you.

Believe it or not!
Believe it or not!
Believe it or not!
Believe it or not!

(Repeat Chorus)

---The Greatest American Hero (Believe it or Not)

Heard it on the radio, and brought back a lot of memories of simply The Greatest American Television Show...and accroding to them, it may be coming out on DVD in 2005! Cool!!! :)

Monday, June 21, 2004


Once again, the Supreme Court overstepped its limits. Even with the atrocious 14th Ammendment, wouldn't the definition of "liberty" seem to encompass not being compulsed to divulge one's identity when not accused of a crime. And yes, Justice Kennedy, there is the problem of the (modern conception of the) Fifth Ammendment's right against self-incrimination if one has a warrant. In that case, would that not be self-incrimination?

But of course, the best thing to do would have been to leave this case alone with the Nevada Supreme Court. I'm not saying that the decision reached is right or wrong; just that again, the Court should not have taken this case. It has again relegated itself to Super-Legislature.

Friday, June 18, 2004


This quote, found here, in essence sums up the entire problem in the United States and the courts.

"Committee member Rep. Salvatore DiMasi, the House majority leader, insisted he could not comment on meeting procedures – referring WND to Scaccia – but said he voted against the bill.

"'I don't believe that judges should be removed because of their interpretation of the constitution,' said DiMasi, a Democrat. 'If there was other wrongdoing – where they committed a crime, or where they enhanced their financial position – those are the kinds of things that would be appropriate.'

And this is the attitude that has allowed judges to have this God like complex. Now of course, he is talking about the Massachussetts Supreme Court, but this is the same attitude that people share with the federal judges. The good lawmaker has it incorrectly: it is precisely because of interpretations that judges should be removed. Of course, in the course of a duly brought up case, and a ruling based on that law, this should not apply. Of course, this is not the issue. The issue is whether courts have the authority to make interpretations that have no textual or historical contexts. For instance, like the Supreme Court saying the McCain-Feingold Law is constitutional even though the plain reading of the text is "Congress shall make no law..."

If judges cannot be recalled for rulings that contravene the basic principles of constitutions, then they become infallible and unanswerable priests. They take the phrase "gods" in Psalm 82 that God uses to describe the judges of Israel to a level that they, although apostate, would never have taken it.

I guess this is why the Confereate Constitution is so much more superior to the U.S. Constitution. Imagine if this provision had been in the U.S. Constitution and exercised:

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof."

---Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.

Imagine if this had been law. Imagine the raw abuses of judicial activism (from both liberals and conservatives) that would have been curtailed. The judge in Nebraska who struck down that State's partial birth abortion law would have been impeached. Oh well.

Tuesday, June 15, 2004


Alastair asks some very interesting questions here, and they are thought provoking. What would have happened if it were Saddam Hussein? That's easy. We would have condemned him, told him if he didn't clean it up we'd bomb him. Hmm...what else...then we'd send him a bunch of tax money. In other words, yes, we'd be a bunch of hypocrites.

The question about the atomic bombs is also interesting. The reason that people (read: Americans) give for the use of the atomic bombs is that a full invasion would have killed countless more citizens and troops. This is true, and one can't deny this fact. This does not morally justify the use of the bombs, however. Yes, these Japanese would have fought and tooth and nail against an invasion, and they would have died, and so would a lot of American troops. However, until that came, the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not combatants. They probably would have been, but I think it's safe to say that if troops began invading the United States, people here would take up arms, and we'd be legitimate combatants. If troops invaded Canada...well, ok, bad example cause that would be an immediate government change. STILL...that in and of would not justify attacking civilians. On the other hand, using nuclear weapons is not necessarily wrong. They could be used against legitimate military , but of course, the resulting radiation and all that goes far beyond the intended target. Should the bombs have been dropped? Probably, but not on civilians. At the very least, there should have been a warning for citizens to leave.

Saturday, June 12, 2004

I listened to President Reagan's funeral on the radio while as at work yesterday. It was very touching, and I will probably go to the library in Simi Valley in a few weeks to belatedly pay my respects to him. I do remember vaguely the time prior to his election. 1978 and 79 were so depressing. I remember the long lines, getting up at 4am to be in line when the gas station opened at 7 or 8, and of course the hostages. It was depressing. Although I obviously didn't comprehend all the events at the time, there was just something in Reagan that gave some hope, even to someone as young as I was at the time. I don't know why...but I do remember I did not like Carter, or Jerry Brown.

I do remember when he was shot. 4th grade, and I still remember my teacher, Miss Moulton (yeah, she's definitely moved up in the world. :)) sitting at her desk, listening to the radio,letting the class go. We obviously annoyed her, because she told us the President had been shot, and she really wanted to listen to the radio. I don't know why that memory sticks with me. For someone was 10 or whatever...dunno. Heh, then again, I still remember my mom buying this album when it came out, and I really loved "Dreams" by Stevie Nicks. I think I'm dating myself because I think this album came out in 1976...not sure. Hey, just checked amazon, and it came out in 1977. Not quite as old as I thought, two of my closest friends weren't even born yet. Scary :)

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear the funeral on the air.I hope and pray that God will comfort the Reagans, especially Nancy.


"The Cause of the South is the Cause of Us All"

--Alexander Stephens
Vice President of the late Confederate States of America

Friday, June 11, 2004


Well, I'm not going to post the link, but it seems Bill Maher, some unfunny slob who thinks he has something smart to say, made some pretty insulting remarks to Christians on Larry King Live. I'll give him this much: he's more brutally honest than those who are allegedly "tolerant." In essence, he said that we are all told that that we should respect other's beliefs, but he says he will not do that. In essence, calling religious beliefs superstitious, and all the typical diahhrea of the mouth.

Yeah, real intelligent. No wonder you got your big break from Comedy Central.


Ray Charles Robinson (aka Ray Charles)
9/23/1930 - 6/10/2004

Well I heard about the fellow you've been dancing with
All over the neighbourhood
So why didn't you ask me baby
Or didn't you think I could?

Well I know that the boogaloo is out of sight
but the shingaling's the thing tonight
But if that was you and me a now baby
I would have shown you how to do it right
Do it right (U-huh)
Do it right (Do it right)
Dot it right
Do it right
Do it right

Twistin', shake it shake it shake it shake it baby
Hey we gonna loop de loop
Shake it out baby
Hey we gonna loop de la
Bend over let me see ya shake your tailfeather
Bend over let me see ya shake your tailfeather
Come on let me see ya shake your tailfeather
Come on let me see ya shake your tailfeather

Twistin', shake it shake it shake it shake it baby
Hey we gonna loop de loop
Shake it out baby
Hey we gonna loop de la
Bend over let me see ya shake your tailfeather
Bend over let me see ya shake your tailfeather
Come on let me see ya shake your tailfeather
Come on let me see ya shake your tailfeather

Come on, come on baby
Come on, yeah, come on babe, alright

Do the twist
Do the fly
Do the swim
And do the bird
Well do the duck
Aaah, and do the monkey
Hey hey, watusi
And a what about the food
Do the mashed potato
What about the boogaloo
Oh, the bony marony
Come on let's do the twist

Twistin', shake it shake it shake it shake it baby

(Crowd Cheers)

"We'll take it!"
"Naturally, and as usual, I have to take an I.O.U."

---From the Motion Picture, The Blues Brothers

You'll be missed. :(

Thursday, June 10, 2004


This is going to be a confession of some sorts, in essense turning away from views that I held in late 80s and early 90s. Around this time, Speech Codes on U.S. college campuses were coming into vogue, as the politically correct crowd started to flex its newfound power. One of the first and perhaps most oppressive speech code was at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. That code, however, was struck down by a federal judge. However, that hasn't stopped the tide against speech codes on campus.

The confession is that I essentially agreed with that decision, and that any speech codes violated freedom of speech. In an abstract sense, that is true, but tell any American about freedom of speech and you automatically think of the 1st Ammendment. Well, I was wrong. Given that I have changed on my views of the Constitution, in that I am essentially a strict-constructionalist, but far more strict than most, if you've read any of my articles, speech codes cannot violate the 1st Ammendment. Again, let us look at the text: "Congress shall make no law..." That's enough to quote. It applies to Congress, not the States or Counties or Cities. It violates the 1st Ammendment only because of Supreme Fiat, which ruled that the 14th Ammendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States. Again, this is simply stupid, especially when the 9th and 10th Ammendments reserve powers to the States. Go figure.

But anyway, given that speech codes are unconstitutional because we decideto follow a lawless Supreme Court, it only stands to reason that this same Court can rule that speech codes donot violate the 1st Ammendment. The Court, and both sides do this, from Justices Ginsburg to Scalia, read the Constitution for what it means to them at the time. So, Justice Scalia can lambast rightfully the Court for its infamous sodomy case for making up a right into the Constitution, and yet, he cannot sign on to the flag burning cases in 1989 and 1991, or right a dissent in a child abuse case in which the child was allowed to testify via television monitor so that he was not in the courtroom with the defendant. I still remember Justice Scalia's remarks on that: The Constitution is clear!!! The 6th Ammendment says that in allcriminal trials, the accused may confront the witnesses against him. Of course, it's a federal protection. Again, every union in the State has this within their constitutions, so it's not like this right is gone if it'snotfound in the 6th. But still notice...when it suits him, he'll use the Constitution to his own ends. Now of course, with the leftists on the need for explination. Their corruption with the document is evident to all.

Hence, that's why I'm at a loss with this group. Yes, they have a worthwhile cause. Any attempts to limit any freedom of speech (in the abstract sense) should be fought tooth and nail. However, the problem is, they are using the federal courts to sue State institutions. Now, we all complain about how liberals use the courts to get their way, and political conservatives moan and scream and kvetch, kvetch, kvetch about the out of control judges who impose their view on everyone else. Make no mistake: there is a valid concern here. On the other hand, we do the same thing. We also the use the federal courts to get what we want when it suits us. Such as it is with this group. This seems to be hypocritical...for all of us who tend to be politically conservative.

On the other hand, and this is not a moral objection but a practical one, if groups like and other groups didn't use the courts, well one would wonder what this country would be like. Would speech codes be on every campus and every word subject to scrutiny? Maybe. However, I would hope that the judges of the States, who usually have to answer to either the Legislatures or the People directly, would see that these codes violate any freedom of proposes they have by statute or by the their constitutions.

So, what should we do? Be hypocrites and use the courts, or don't and have an extreme secularization upon us. Constitutionally, it seems clear. Of course, when was the last time the government ever followed the document?

Tuesday, June 01, 2004


Well, I'm a day late (actually only a couple hours) but Memorial Day is to remember those people who gave their lives.

"You're a cool guy...a little strange, but cool."

Pfc. Roy D. Brown, Jr.
3/75th Ranger Regiment
Born in 1970; End of Duty was in 1989, killed in action during Operation: Just Cause.

Has it really been 16 years since you wrote that in my yearbook?

This page is powered by Blogger.