The Inartful Dodger

Earnedmedia provides a very helpful timeline of Barack Obama’s position(s) on gun control. Excerpts appear below but the Earnedmedia timeline provides explanation and documentation:

SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The "Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns."

2004: Barack Obama Voted Against "Letting People Use A Self-Defense Argument If Charged With Violating Local Handgun Bans."

NOVEMBER 2007: The Chicago Tribune Reports That The Obama Campaign Says
Barack Obama "Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional."

FEBRUARY 2008: During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: "…You said in Idaho recently -- I'm quoting here -- 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama: "Right."

Harris: "And you've said that it's constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Obama: "...I think it is important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets ..."

But Barack Obama was supporting a law that made all handguns illegal so when he says there is nothing wrong with a community taking "illegal" handguns off the streets, he apparently measn all handguns.

In other words, Barack Obama, the Constitutional scholar, acknowledges that the Constitution gives the right for individuals to bear arms, but he said that the Washington DC law banning handguns was constitutional, but he supports the Supreme Court ruling that says the Washington DC law was unconstitutional. If Barack Obama was running for President of Alice’s “Wonderland,” I’d say he was very qualified.

When confronted with the Chicago tribune article which “quoted the Obama campaign as saying, “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional” the Obama compain said that statement was “inartful” (ABC News). Inartful?

I really can’t understand why anyone believes anything Obama says anymore.

Breaking: Supreme Court and 2nd ammendment

According to the Associated Press: "The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history." Read about it in USA Today.

Judges and social justice

Interviewing Rudolf Giuliani, Megyn Kelly played a quote from Barack Obama in which Obama referred to himself saying, “Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

Giuliani laughed out loud at the quote. When Kelly asked why, Giuliani said, “Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It’s written by members of the Congress. It’s written by framers of the Constitution. It’s written by the people when they amend the Constitution.”

Giuliani is absolutely right and it doesn’t take a law degree from Harvard to see that Barack Obama’s view of the judiciary stabs at the very heart of our democracy.

Our judges are supposed to interpret and apply the laws that were voted on and passed by the representatives of the people. If judges can arbitrarily override the views of the people in the name of the judge’s own politically correct sense of what “social and economic justice” means to them personally, what we then have is a group of elitist high priests who sit in judgment on the will of the people, and our democracy becomes a sham.

Make no mistake about it. A vote for Obama and his activist view of the judiciary is a vote to undermine the very foundation of our democracy. Giuliani explains it quite well. Please watch the interview on Hot Air.

Illegal prayer

It is apparently OK in America to have state-funded Islamic schools in Minnesota and New York, or tax-funded Muslim foot washing basins, at Normandale Community College, Savannah State and the University of Michigan. It is also apparently OK for public schools to require students to “roll play” Islam in California and Oregon.

But when a football coach bowed his head during a long-standing tradition of student-led prayer before a football game, a federal appeals court found that he was in violation of the law!!!

Is it any wonder that many of us think that the Left-wing’s view of separation of church and state has been an anti-Christian sham?

Republic of Montana?

Next month the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments about whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms covers individuals, or just “collective right” of a state to have a state militia like the national guard. According to an article in the Washington Times:

Montana officials are warning that if the Supreme Curt rules in the D.C. gun ban case that the right to keep and bear arms protects only state-run militias like the National Guard, then the federal government will have breached Montana's statehood contract.

Nobody is raising flags for the Republic of Montana, but nobody is kidding, either. So far, 39 elected Montana officials have signed a resolution declaring that a court ruling of the Second Amendment is a right of states and not of individuals would violate Montana's compact.

"The U.S. would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract," Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson said in a Feb. 15 letter to The Washington Times.

The article says that “in 1889, the settlers of the Montana territory struck a deal with the federal government: They agreed to join the union, and the government agreed that individuals had the right to bear arms.”

The Right to Privacy

I went to pick up a prescription at the drive-through window of my pharmacy recently. The security cameras were taking my picture.

As I drive down the freeway my car is often being monitored by dozens of cameras.

When I stop off to get gas at the convenience store, the cameras are taking my picture there too.

When I go into my bank, or even if I just get money out of the ATM, security cameras are recording my every move.

When I walk through the mall, I am being constantly monitored.

When I go to my local Target, not only is my every move being monitored, but a TV screen displays my entry to everyone else entering the store as well.

If I go downtown, I will be monitored by cameras as I walk down the sidewalk.

When I go to the airport, not only am I being monitored, but my personal belongings can be opened and handled by strangers, often in full view of dozens of other strangers who are not even security personnel.

I’m not complaining, mind you. I personally like the fact that these cameras help to catch criminals and allow us to see road conditions before we even leave the house. And wild horses couldn’t get me on a plane that was not being protected by strong security measures.

My only point is that if we genuinely had a constitutional right to privacy, all of these cameras should presumably be unconstitutional, shouldn’t they?

The “right to privacy” is a farce, fabricated by the high priests of the Supreme Court to justify killing unborn babies. Now that the justices have created this new “right” they are free to selectively apply, or not apply it however they like.

The Constitution was designed to keep government in check and to limit government power. But when the Supreme Court justices feel free to read their own personal views into the Constitution, the Constitution can be twisted to mean anything the court (i.e. government) wants it to mean, and we no longer have any meaningful constitutional protection from govenment.

McCain has pledged to appoint justices who will interpret the Constitution according to the intention of the original framers. Clinton and Obama want justices to interpret the law according to their personal views (i.e. whatever happens to be politically correct or expedient at the time). If you vote for Obama or Hillary, you might just as well vote to tear up the Constitution because the result could pretty much be the same.

Huckabee and the constitution

Bryan on Hot Air criticizes Huckabee’s remarks about the Constitution being a “living document.” I was all ready to jump on Huckabee until I actually watched the YouTube video of what he really said.

In the context of the interview I think Huckabee made it clear that he thinks the Constitution is a living document in the sense that it was designed to be amended, NOT in the sense that Supreme Court Justices should be free to cut the meaning off from discussion of the authors’ original intentions.

Huckabee may be guilty of using a poor choice of words, but I don’t think he was renouncing the position on his website that says “I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a “living Constitution.”

This is an important issue because with one or two Supreme Court justices who could retire during the next term, it is crucial that we have a president who understands that when the Constitution is cut free from any discussion of original intention, the American people are left at the mercy of creative Supreme Court justices who can read anything into it that fits their own particular political or social biases.

The Constitution was intended as a check on government power. When the government-- in this case the Supreme Court justices--can make the Constitution mean whatever they want, we have no check on government power and are potentially at the mercy of tyrants.

The torture of Megan Williams

Six white trash low-lifes kidnapped and tortured a young black woman named Megan Williams. For an entire week, they locked her in a small storage shed calling racial slurs while raping her, stabbing her, beating her, pouring hot water on her, choking her with a cable cord, and making her drink from a toilet and forcing her to eat rat droppings.

Prosecutors have decided not to press for hate crimes charges because the state’s hate crimes laws allow up to a10 year penalty while regular kidnapping charges bring up to a life penalty (AP).

Do you think Ms. Williams will ever get over this? Is it really justice to put these people away for life while the tax payers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide for their food, shelter, clothing, medical and dental care for the rest of their lives?

Quite frankly, I think it may be time to repeal the amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. These animals should be publically horse-whipped and burned alive at the stake.

Censoring religion in prisons

"We are afraid to affirm the value of our own civilization. We are afraid to say that Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam isn't, and so have to make these outlandish gestures to appease the god of multiculturalism and relativism." So says Robert Spencer regarding the Bureau of Prisons' new policy of purging thousands of religous books from the libraries of our prisons (DhimmiWatch).

If the prison policy is to reject books that incite violence, it is undoubtedly only one religion that is usually affected. So rather than risking charges of discriminating against this one religion, the Bureau of Prisons has decided to discriminate againat all relgions. They are creating a small list of approved religious books that can be in prison libraries. All the rest--thousands of books--are being discarded.

Is this even constitutional? The ACLU will defend the "rights" of people to have child pornography and the American Library Association will fight against any effort to keep pornography away from children in public libraries, but will they fight to allow prisoners to have religious books? I'm not going to hold my breath.

I agree fully with Robert Spencer's assessment.

Establishment of religion?

The University of Michigan at Dearborn has announced that it plans to spend $25,000 for footwashing areas for Muslims (Dhimmi Watch).

Why is it somehow a violation of the establishment clause for a courthouse to display the Ten Commandments, or for a public school to put on a play about the brith of Christ at Christmas, but it is not a violation for a state university to spend $25,000 for the benifit of a single religion?

Detaining sleeper agents

According to Fox News:

The Bush administration cannot legally detain a U.S. resident it believes is an Al Qaeda sleeper agent without charging him, a divided federal appeals court ruled
Monday. The court said sanctioning the indefinite detention of civilians would
have "disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country."

The case will likely be appealed. So what do you think? Should the government be able to indefinitely detain, without charges, those it determines are terrorist sleeper agents? Should the legal rights and proceedings be the same for U.S. citizens, legal residents and illegal aliens?

Where is the ACLU now?

The University of Michigan is about to spend tens of thousands of dollars to install Muslim "footbaths" (Debbie Schlussel.Com).

The American Left in general, and especially organizations like the ACLU, People for the American Way, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State often attack every hint of Christianity in the public sector. Yet when Islam is imposed on students in public schools, or when colleges like the Minnesota Technical and Community College or the University of Michigan want to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars accommodating Islam (and no other religion), why do these groups remain so silent?

I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional for a state university to provide Muslims with "footbaths" as long as similar funding is provided for Christian and Jewish students. But for a state university to financially support just one religion and neglect others has to be seen as unconstitutional by any thinking person. Why can the Left see this and where is their outrage?

Colorado Christian too sectarian?

According to a new ruling, the state of Colorado can now decide which colleges are “too sectarian” for students to receive tax dollars for their education. Although state education funds are still available for students attending other religious colleges, Colorado Christian was found to be “too sectarian.” In other words, while Christians pay taxes like everyone else, those in Colorado who choose to attend colleges that take their faith seriously, will not get any back for their education (Inside Higher Ed., Alliance Defense Fund)

The first amendment was intended to keep the government from establishing a state church or from promoting one religion or denomination over another. When the government provides state funds for students at some religious colleges, but denies the same funding to students at other religious colleges based solely on what is "too sectarian", how does that not violate the spirit of the First Amendment?

Bible display censored

According to CNSNews, "A federal appeals court Tuesday let stand an earlier ruling that a monument outside a courthouse in Houston, Texas, violated the so-called separation of church and state, because the display contained a Bible."

The case was brought by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. I'm still waiting for them or the ACLU to file suit against schools that require students to engage in Islamic roll play, or against the Minnesota college that is "planning to install facilities for Muslims to use in preparing for daily prayers."

The double standard continues.

More on Christian terrorists

A couple days ago I posted on "Chistian Terrorists," about a public school that ran a mock terrorism drill with "Chistian terrorists" as the bad guys. Yesterday, a constitutional attorney weighed in saying that the school's actions may have been unconstitutional:

Frankly, this kind of anti-Christian bigotry by school officials is despicable
and is not related in any way to the legitimate purposes of a hostage drill. In
fact, the Constitution forbids public school officials from demonstrating this
kind of open hostility towards religious beliefs with which they disagree.
Furthermore, the whole predicate of the exercise is outrageous. The perpetrators
of the hostage-taking were allegedly motivated because their daughter had been
expelled for praying before the beginning of the school day. Not only do
students have the right to pray before the school day, but Burlington Township
officials acknowledge that they have that right. So this entire scenario was
unrealistic, unnecessary and offensive....Could you imagine the outrage if this
fictional scenario involved any other religious group? No other religious group
in America would tolerate this kind of insult (Townhall).

I wonder if the ACLU or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State will complain about this school's violation of the separation of church and state? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Samuel Alito and the Constitution

Samuel Alito will soon be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Hopefully he will provide a balance to those justices who see the Constitution as a “living, breathing, document,” i.e. an interpretation of the Constitution that is flexible and can change as the culture changes. Although not addressing the Alito confirmation, historian Thomas Woods offers an important historical perspective:

“When modern-day liberals justify extremely broad readings of the Constitution on the grounds that we need a ‘living, breathing Constitution’ that ‘changes with the times,’ they are actually recommending the very system the colonists sought to escape. The British constitution was very flexible indeed—too flexible for the colonists, who were inflexibly committed to upholding their traditional rights. The ‘living, breathing’ British constitution was no safeguard of American liberties” (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, B.A. in history from Harvard, masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University, 13).

Originalists and assisted suicide

On the radio last week conservative talk show host (and lawyer) Laura Ingrham argued that the Supreme Court needs the best constitutional minds that the conservative side has to offer, and that Harriet Miers is not one of them. I think Ms. Ingrham has a good point. On the other hand, I am a little concerned that some of the conservative attacks against Ms. Miers are simply due to the fact that she is not the judicial bulldog conservatives would have preferred. This makes me concerned that some of those on the right would be just as guilty of judicial activism as those on the left.

Take, for example, the assisted suicide case (Gonzalez vs. Oregon) now before the Supreme Court. Many conservatives want Supreme Court justices who will vote against assisted suicide even though (as far as I can tell) there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit Oregon (at least in principle) from implementing a voter-approved assisted suicide program. Therefore, regardless of my personal opinion on assisted suicide, if I were on the Supreme Court I would probably have to vote to let Oregon’s law stand (ignoring, for purposes of this illustration, other issues like interstate regulation of drugs, etc.).

Such a vote would outrage many conservatives because, like those on the left, what many conservatives really want is someone who will vote for their side of the issues. But when Supreme Court justices read their own personal preferences into the Constitution, it is a dangerous threat to our freedom regardless of whether such judicial activism comes from the right or the left.

I predict that if judge Roberts, our new Chief Justice, votes to let this Oregon law stand, many conservatives will immediately jump to the conclusion that he has betrayed the conservative cause. But as long as he rules based on what the Constitution actually says and—to the best of his ability to determine—what the framers intended, he will have remained true to conservative values, even if we don’t like the outcome.

Pledge of Allegiance and Declaration of Independence

If—as a California court decided—it is unconstitutional for public school students to recite “one nation under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance, is it also unconstitutional for students to recite the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration of Independence speaks of “Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” It concludes by appealing to the “Supreme Judge of the world....”

If reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in a public school is unconstitutional, then surely it must also be unconstitutional to recite the Declaration of Independence in a public school. On the other hand, can you imagine anything more absurd than thinking that the framers of the Constitution

--men who founded this country--would think that it should be unconstitutional for children to recite their Declaration of Independence in schools?! It is just as absurd to think that they would have dissapproved of Ten Commandments in courthouses, Christmas songs in schools, or nativity scenes in parks. But frankly, I doubt that the ACLU and Freedom from Religion Foundation really care what the founders of this great country wanted or intended.

Napolitano and Constitutional Chaos

I recently finished reading Constitutional Chaos, by Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and professor of constitutional law. Since the judge is also the Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst, I assumed that he was going to “let those left wing radicals have it.” But the more I read the book, the more it looked like Napolitano was himself one of those “left wing radicals.” At one point I almost put the book down, thinking, how did this guy get hired at Fox News? But the more I read, the more I realized that this book is not about the battle between the left and the right, between democrats and republicans…the judge is equally harsh (very harsh) on both Clinton’s Attorney General Janet Reno as he is on Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Constitutional Chaos is about government against the people. The book is supported by case after case demonstrating that the government is often not bound by, nor does it often obey, its own laws, rules or regulations. In many cases I wanted to say, “well, we’re talking about prosecuting criminals and terrorists, here!” but as Napolitano demonstrated, if the government can ignore its own laws to prosecute the devil, it can also ignore its own laws to come after you. And even if you like the current government, you have no guarantee that the next administration is going to like you. The Constitution and law is the only human protection you have. Whether you are on the right or left, Constitutional Chaos is must reading for every American!

Someone recently sent a quote to me by e-mail. I don’t know who the author is, but the quote said, “They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't they just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys; it's worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.” I have no idea whether the judge would find this humorous or not, but I think he would agree there is more truth to it than most people realize.

John Roberts and a bedtime baseball story

Once upon a time there was a far away country where the people loved baseball and the umpires faithfully followed the baseball rule book. Over time, a new group of umpires was hired. They begin finding rules in the rule book that no one had ever seen before. For example, they begin to allow Olympic sprinters who were not even part of the team, to run bases for the players. One day a new umpire applied for the job. The interviewers wanted to know what the candidate for umpire thought about Olympic sprinters. The candidate said that his position on Olympic sprinters was irrelevant because his job was simply to apply the rule book as fairly as possible. This response made the interviewers angry because their teams often won with Olympic sprinters and they didn’t care whether these sprinters were allowed by the rule book or not. But, try as they might, they couldn’t get the candidate to discuss his position on Olympic sprinters in baseball. All the candidate would say is that his job would be to apply the rule book fairly.

For years our umpires (Supreme Court judges) have been “finding” rules in the rule book (Constitution) that no one had ever seen before (The right to abortion, the right to gay marriage, and rules against saying “one nation under God”, or praying in public schools, against posting the Ten Commandments in court houses, against having crosses in parks or manger scenes in public squares). So the issue in the hiring of an umpire (a judge’s confirmation) is no longer whether the umpire (e.g. Judge Roberts) is qualified or whether s/he will fairly apply the rule book, the issue is whether s/he will respect the rules created by previous umpires (legal precedents), regardless of whether these rules are actually in the rule book or not. This is because many people (ACLU, PAW, NOW, etc.) don’t want all the people to vote on the new rules because their team might loose. Like angry parents at a baseball game, they just want their own way. It’s OK if they want their way—but the right way to get their way is to let everyone have a voice by voting on a rulebook change, not by hiring umpires who will make up the rules as the game goes along! (My apologies to Judge Robert’s for expanding his baseball analogy in ways that he may or may not approve).