The 51st State?

Should Puerto Rico become the 51st State of the Union?

Bush urges vote in Puerto Rico.

They may vote in favor, but it won't be an overwhelming decision. Anything above 65% is good enough for me.

Many issues may be discussed including: D.C. Statehood, Taiwan liberation & Statehood, Taxation without representation, and Hawaii separation. I await your opinions.




UPDATE: Slow News Day... will be posting Federalist matters soon.

Christmas with the Duke

Ever since TBS ran “Christmas with the Duke” I’ve always watched John Wayne movies on Christmas day. I believe that Americans at heart are either like Jane Fonda, or John Wayne. I’ve learned more from John Wayne than I have from Congress, or the Courts. John Wayne represented everything good about America. “Dissent is patriotic” is often shoved in my face, and often used out of context. Not all dissent is patriotic. John Wayne was patriotic.

I’ve compiled some of my favorite quotes from the Duke:

“Out here, due process is a bullet.”

“Republic. I like the sound of the word.”

"I've always followed my father's advice: he told me, first to always keep my word and, second, to never insult anybody unintentionally. If I insult you, you can be goddamn sure I intend to. And, third, he told me not to go around looking for trouble."

"We've made mistakes along the way, but that's no reason to start tearing up the best flag God ever gave to any country."

"If everything isn't black and white, I say why the hell not."

"I have found a certain type calls himself a Liberal...Now I always thought I was a Liberal. I came up terribly surprised one time when I found out that I was a Right-Wing Conservative Extremist, when I listened to everybody's point of view that I ever met, and then decided how I should feel. But this so-called new Liberal group, Jesus, they never listen to your point of view..."

Merry Christmas.

Bush, Wiretaps, and SCOTUS...

“President Bush declared Monday that he has the power to approve eavesdropping within the United States without going through standard legal procedures” (ABC News).

If anyone believes that Bush, and Nixon, are the only Presidents to eavesdrop on Americans, they are incorrect.

The power of the Executive Branch to protect American citizens by eavesdropping is not unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution does not explicitly deny this exercise of the Executive Branch.

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. Requests are adjudicated by a special eleven member court called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court” (FAS).

In 1967 (before FISA) the Supreme Court ruled in Katz vs. United States that 4th Amendment restrictions do not apply in cases of national security.

Preceding FISA, a number of Federal Courts upheld warrant-less wiretaps in 1973, and 1974.

After FISA is another story. In 1984 the Supreme Court ruled in United States vs. Duggan, that compelling issues of national security override FISA.

Let’s also journey back to September 18, 2001. The President signs the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” bill. In this bill it reads, “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (FindLaw).

The President did not break the law.

This is an important issue, and I believe that the Supreme Court should revisit FISA, and the War Powers Act of 1973. In my personal opinion, I believe that both of these acts are unconstitutional. The thread is now open.

War Powers Act

FISA

This Day in History

“In Boston Harbor, a group of Massachusetts colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians board three British tea ships and dump 342 chests of tea into the water.”

The raid, known as “The Boston Tea Party,” was a protest of the Tea Act of 1773. The Act basically bailed out the British East India Company by lowering its tea tax and thus establishing a monopoly on tea trade.

“Patriot leader Samuel Adams organized the now-famous "tea party" with about 60 members of the Sons of Liberty. The British tea dumped into Boston Harbor on the night of December 16 was worth more than $700,000 in today’s currency.”

Stunned by this action, the British parliament ordered British military rule over Massachusetts. As a result, the first Continental Congress began.

America formed as a result of many things including a hijacked form of capitalism. Pure capitalism is patriotic, and I hope we never forget. I hope we remember this lesson when national and foreign policy are debated. China….you’re next!

Source #1

Wonderful, Wonderful News!

You're probably wondering why there is another image of a gavel? In this case, it is because of some recent news. As you know I am a college student in Utah, and I am politically active on my liberal campus. I gave a speech about Constitutional Interpretation, and apparently some folks in student government heard. They told the president (who is conservative), and I have been nominated to the supreme court of my university. I have to be confirmed by the Senate, but I am very hopeful and will remain very cautious much like John Roberts. I am indeed honored to have the opportunity to interpret a constitution, though not supreme, to protect the rights of my peers, and to strike out unconstitutional legislation which passes through the legislature. Oh, what my father would have thought?

Status: Pending...my fate is being shuffled through the bureaucracy. The Executive Branch has shut down for the break, so my future is pending...but looks good. Now I know how Alito feels.

Hooray California!

In 1999 a lesbian woman named Benitez claimed that Dr. Christine Brody refused to artificially inseminate her because of her marital status. Furthermore she claimed that Dr. Brody's religious beliefs prevented her from this procedure, and that this violated California's anti-discrimination laws.

A California appeals court reversed a lower court decision and ruled that Dr. Brody had a right to refuse to artificially inseminate a lesbian based upon her religious beliefs. Therefore discrimination based upon marital status is not prohibited by California law.

I would have gone further, but they got it right. No one should be forced to do things he or she does not morally agree with. By denying this woman of this procedure, Dr. Brody exercised her religious liberty. This is Constitutionally protected. Sadly, I predict that the California Supreme Court will reverse this decision. I will be watching.

Source #1