I wonder if I’m the only Conservative in the world who ever found some value in a single page of the Anti-Federalist Papers? While the Federalist Papers are a great body of work used by those who pressed for Federalism, there were detractors who did have a good counter-point about the structure of our judiciary. THEY WERE THE ONES who said that our structure gave too much power to the Judiciary and we would be in the court ruled mess we have today.

Look at what they said in Antifederalist No. 78-79 THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 1).

…
The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control.
…

While so much focus is put on the Federalist Papers, I think some Conservatives would probably find some value in parts of the Anti-Federalist Papers. I respect the work of the “founding fathers”, but I don’t look at those “founding fathers” behind the Federalist Papers as gods. I don’t look at any of the “founding fathers” as gods, because my God is in heaven and his son’s spirit lives in me. I don’t take membership in a political party. So I can read both sides of the argument . I won’t say I’d want a nation ruled by the Antifederalists, but on the judiciary I wish somebody had taken them more seriously. They made plenty of predictions of doom and gloom, but on some points they hit the nail on the head with precision.

Antifederalist No. 7 ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL LEAD TO CIVIL WAR also has some interesting statements.

…
The Congress’s having power without control-to borrow money on the credit of the United States; their having power to appoint their own salaries, and their being paid out of the treasury of the United States, thereby, in some measure, rendering them independent of the individual states; their being judges of the qualification and election of their own members, by which means they can get men to suit any purpose; together with Col. Mason’s wise and judicious objections-are grievances, the very idea of which is enough to make every honest citizen exclaim in the language of Cato, 0 Liberty, 0 my country!
…

And the author of this particular Antifederalist paper certainly was pro-life.

…
And when the sword has decided quarrel, the scene is closed with banishments, forfeitures, and barbarous executions that entail distress on children then unborn. May Heaven avert the dreadful catastrophe!
…

Even back then they knew of abortion and even then it was seen as a horrible act by those with a solid foundation in the Lord.

Also, on the issue of slavery, in Antifederalist No. 54 APPORTIONMENT AND SLAVERY: NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN VIEWS, someone who was anti-slavery wrote the following powerful words.

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” What a strange and unnecessary accumulation of words are here used to conceal from the public eye what might have been expressed in the following concise manner: Representatives are to be proportioned among the States respectively, according to the number of freemen and slaves inhabiting them, counting five slaves for three freemen.

“In a free State,” says the celebrated Montesquieu, “every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government, therefore the legislature should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives.” But it has never been alleged that those who are not free agents can, upon any rational principle, have anything to do in government, either by themselves or others. If they have no share in government, why is the number of members in the assembly to be increased on their account? Is it because in some of the States, a considerable part of the property of the inhabitants consists in a number of their fellow-men, who are held in bondage, in defiance of every idea of benevolence, justice and religion, and contrary to all the principles of liberty which have been publicly avowed in the late Glorious Revolution? If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the States, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented-for a great share of property in some of them consists in these animals; and they have as much control over their own actions as these poor unhappy creatures, who are intended to be described in the above recited clause, by the words, “all other persons.” By this mode of apportionment, the representatives of the different parts of the Union will be extremely unequal; in some of the Southern States the slaves are nearly equal in number to the free men; and for all these slaves they will be entitled to a proportionate share in the legislature; this will give them an unreasonable weight in the government, which can derive no additional strength, protection, nor defense from the slaves, but the contrary. Why, then, should they be represented? What adds to the evil is, that these States are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves until the year 1808-and for every cargo of these unhappy people which unfeeling, unprincipled, barbarous and avaricious wretches may tear from their country, friends and tender connections, and bring into those States, they are to be rewarded by having an increase of members in the General Assembly….

- BRUTUS

I feel we have the best thing going in the entire world. But we should not be afraid to consider areas for improvement.

The US Supreme Court decision to suspend the President’s approved war tribunals for terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay is a terrible setback for American security. But it is a great event for our enemies in Al Qaeda. Mark Levin was able to best sum up things yesterday and appropriately named the justices involved The Al Qaeda 5!

He fully detailed how this was a terrible decision. As a lawyer who has successfully represented cases before the US Supreme Court on numerous occasions, he’s able to explain it all very well. He explained who is covered by the Geneva Convention. And it does not cover terrorists! He fully detailed how The Al Qaeda 5 not only changed US law, but the Geneva Convention as well. He also detailed the previous historical judicial precedent, that has now been broken.

Of course you have to excuse some of his language, but this is a cause for outrage! And only Mark Levin can offer the appropriate level of anger along with the legal facts all at the same time.

Hear Mark Levin using the audio link below.
Mark Levin on Hamdan v Rumsfeld ruling – WMA Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

update 6/2/2006 12:o8AM: Conservative Culture has more on this terrible decision.

In one of their worst rulings of all time, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision, that enemy terrorists thugs being held at Gitmo cannot be subjected to war crimes trials ordered by the Commander-in-Chief President George W. Bush. To prevent the Commander in Chief from waging war against the enemy and treat it like something “all 3 branches” of government must be involved in is totally insane. Once the war begins it’s the job of the executive branch alone to determine how to deal with the enemy. I prefer taking no prisoners and giving the enemy what they deserve on the battle field, but taking prisoners is good for information about other enemies. Which is why I have no problem with troops doing what they feel necessary to obtain that information. But just the same, the terrorists in Gitmo get treated very well. More about conditions at Gitmo later. Here’s an MSM report about the ruling.

So we see 3 had their heads on straight (John Roberts would have made 4 if he could have participated), while 5 are total idiots. 5 want to treat the enemy like some “regular military” individuals. They are not “regular”, they are not citizens and the only right they have is to wait for us to kill them or decide otherwise. These are the terrorists that were caught in the mist of a war! These are members of the enemy that was behind 9/11. They should be treated as such and given war trials. And that’s nicer than they deserve.

Now you see why people like Justice Clarence Thomas are good and the Liberals are not. Because the Liberals will give your enemy everything he needs to kill you!

Here’s part of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent.

Here’s part of Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent. Which I must say really is a home run!

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, and with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins in all but Parts I, II?C?1, and III?B?2, dissenting.

For the reasons set forth in JUSTICE SCALIA?s dissent, it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s claims, see ante, at 1?11. The Court having concluded otherwise, it is appropriate to respond to the Court’s resolution of the merits of petitioner?s claims because its opinion openly flouts our well-established duty to respect the Executive?s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs. The Court?s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the ?[m]ilitary necessity,? ante, at 48, of the Commander in Chief?s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered. I respectfully dissent.

I

Our review of petitioner?s claims arises in the context of the President?s wartime exercise of his commander-in-chief authority in conjunction with the complete support of Congress. Accordingly, it is important to take measure of the respective roles the Constitution assigns to the three branches of our Government in the conduct of war.
As I explained in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507 (2004), the structural advantages attendant to the Executive Branch?namely, the decisiveness, ??activity, secrecy,and dispatch?? that flow from the Executive?s ??unity,?? id., at 581 (dissenting opinion) (quoting The Federalist No. 70,
p. 472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton))?led the Founders to conclude that the ?President ha[s] primary responsibility?along with the necessary power?to protect the national security and to conduct the Nation?s foreign relations.? 542 U. S., at 580. Consistent with this conclusion, the Constitution vests in the President ?[t]he executive Power,? Art. II, ?1, provides that he ?shall be Commander in Chief? of the Armed Forces, ?2, and places in him the power to recognize foreign governments, ?3. This Court has observed that these provisions confer upon the President broad constitutional authority to protect the Nation?s security in the manner he deems fit. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 2 Black 635, 668 (1863) (?If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force . . . without waiting for any special legislative authority?); Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850) (acknowledging that the President has the authority to ?employ [the Nation's Armed Forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy?).
…

Yesterday Kirby Wilbur was filling in for Sean Hannity and interviewed Charles ?Cully? Stimson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Office of Detainee Affairs. The interview covered a lot about Gitmo, the terrorists detained there and their treatment.

Here are some points from the interview, although there are more I don’t list here.

• There are 460 terrorists at Gitmo.
• Actionable information has been obtained from the terrorists at Gitmo.
• Terrorists in other countries INCLUDING FRANCE want to be treated like terrorists in Gitmo.
• 15 terrorists released from Gitmo have been found later taking up arms against US soldiers.
• Stimson is not aware of any that left Gitmo and actually did anything good with their lives.
• Suicides occur even in regular prison. I say so what to whether a terrorist kills himself! Liberals always talk about a “right to die”, except when it’s a terrorist or evil murdering convicted killer. For them, just the innocent babies and invalids are good enough to kill.
• Many attempts have been made by terrorists at Gitmo to attack and kill guards.

This is an interview worth hearing, especially after today’s ruling.

Hear the interview using the link below.
Kirby Wilbur and Charles ?Cully? Stimson discuss Gitmo – ASF Audio
(For the sake of bandwidth there will be no other formats made.)

Judge George W. Greer must like having the power to condemn someone to death in his hands. Rather than allowing any laws to be made by elected officials, he’s against it and feels he can do a better job making the decision about someone’s life all by himself.

The only reason Terri Schiavo was not killed sooner was because of efforts to challenge the ruling of Judge George W. Greer.

Judge Greer feels there is no need to have laws to prevent someone from being starved to death, when we have him to decide .

Hat tip to Michael Savage for the article.

So Samuel Alito took the more Liberal side of a death penalty case. Looking at a report of the case, I feel he got this one wrong.

If it were a state court that ordered the stay of execution I would say that the US Supreme Court has no business hearing the case at all. But it was the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered the stay of execution. It would have been fully within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court to overrule their decision. To even dream of considering this last minute appeal on the grounds of a lethal injection being “cruel and unusual punishment” is just insane! This man killed a young girl. He confessed to doing it while strung out on crack. So what if he feels pain while he dies. For what he did he should get much worse. And all this crying about discrimination and past slavery, what a crock!

Michael Anthony Taylor was never a slave. For a murdering crack head to even try and associate himself with people that had to endure forced slavery is a disrespect to their struggle. I’m sure any part of his DNA that has any ancestral connection to a slave would feel disgraced, if they knew an offspring connected with their blood ended up being a murdering dope head!

I don’t think Alito’s view of this case means he will be going Liberal. I don’t even think it means he will be a swing vote. He’s shown some lenancy on another death penalty case which had different circumstances. I think he just wants to be sure everything is double-checked.

Now given Samuel Alito has once again moved to hold off the execution of a Black man, will the NAACP congratulate him? Of course not. They did not like Alito before and they will continue to paint him as a racist. Because they are a pawn for the Democratic party. So they must show dislike towards anyone connected with George W. Bush and the Republican party.