Big Dogs Weblog

SCOTUS Ignores History in Decision

Jun 14, 2008 General, Terrorism

The Supreme Court ruled this past week that terrorists at Gitmo had the same rights as American citizens even though they are not in our country and they are not citizens. In so deciding, the majority, comprised of the liberals on the court, and the new Sandra O’Connor, Anthony “Swing Vote” Kennedy decided that they would ignore centuries of legal precedent. Amazingly, Democrats like Chuck Schumer are not jumping up and down and screaming at the court.

You see, Schumer was one of the libs who grilled John Roberts in his confirmation hearing on the subject of abortion. The concept of stare decisis came up and Roberts agreed that it was important. Stare decisis is a doctrine that says courts will follow previous judicial decisions unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. Schumer wanted to make sure Roberts understood that the Democrats viewed the issue of abortion settled law and they wanted Roberts to affirm his belief in the settled law, the principle of stare decisis.

With regard to Boumediene v Bush, the court ignored centuries of legal precedent and they ignored the Constitution. They cite article I Section 9 which states the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in time of rebellion or invasion. This is all well and good but it means with regard to whom the Constitution applies. The terrorists at Gitmo are not citizens and they are not even in our country. Not only did the majority ignore history but they admitted they have no basis upon which to justify the ruling:

The court majority did so acknowledging that they could find no precedent to confer such a right to alien enemies not within sovereign U.S.

They could find no precedent to confer such a right on aliens but they certainly had plenty of precedent to deny the right. They ignored the precedent and though only they know absolutely why, their actions make it appear as if they support the enemy and want to see America weakened.

Americans who are bothered by this decision and the blatant disregard for our Constitution should remember this. The next president will likely get to appoint two or three justices. Do we really want two or three more of the kind of people who gave us this ruling? As an aside, these are the people who ruled that it was OK for the government to take your property and give it to private entities.

Do we really want more people like this on the court or do we want justices who use the Constitution and the rule of law to make decisions?

Sources:
Townhall
US Constitution

Tags: liberal majority, poor ruling, precedent, stare decisis, supreme court

Soldiers Can Solve Detainee Problem

Jun 13, 2008 Political, Terrorism

The more liberal members of the US Supreme Court did something extraordinary yesterday when they conferred Constitutional protection on people who are not covered under our Constitution. The Constitution of the US is a document that applies to citizens and those here legally. By saying that the detainees at Gitmo have the same Constitutional rights as others (especially for acts committed outside the US) the court has weakened our country. What next, will it be OK for them to be released and walk around the US keeping and bearing arms? Will they be allowed to vote? If we say that they are protected by the Constitution it has to mean the whole document, not just a part of it.

I don’t understand why this is an issue to begin with. Why don’t we call them Prisoners of War and call Gitmo a POW camp? We will release them when the war is over just as we have done in other wars. If some of them are suspected of crimes then we should put them on trial and be done with it. If all else fails, send them to another country and release them. I think there are a few places where they could go and be treated very badly.

Our soldiers can solve part of this problem by not taking prisoners, excuse me, detainees. Kill them in battle and there will be no problem with Gitmo and the Supreme Court. This is something that is easy to do. Refuse to allow surrender except under the most obvious conditions such as they lay down their arms and lie down with their hands behind their heads. Shooting them then would be murder. Killing them while they still look ready to fight is not.

In the event that these animals absolutely have to be captured then they should never be taken to a base where the SCOTUS would have any say. Hold them in POW camps in other countries. I am all in favor of handing them over to the Iraqi military and letting them deal with them. If the whiners think these animals have been treated badly at Gitmo they should wait and see how they are treated in other places by other countries.

We have already seen where some of these so called innocent people have been recaptured or killed on the battlefield. One can only pray that if they are released they do not make their way to the US and detonate a bomb killing untold numbers of innocent civilians.

Of course, the five justices who decided this will never have to worry about being affected. They live in relative safety and that is unfortunate (not that they are safe but that it skews their view of how others are affected).

I wonder how these people would have ruled if one of those planes had been heading for the Supreme Court building?

Source:
My Way News

Tags: bad ruling, liberal justices, supreme court, terrorists

WaPo is Wrong on Right to Bear Arms

Mar 18, 2008 General

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the DC gun ban and they will be asked to decide whether the Second Amendment is an individual right or a collective right that only applies to the militia. Any sand person can read the Second Amendment and tell it is an individual right. Yes it is worded peculiarly but it states that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders knew that a militia might need to be drawn from the population and that if that were ever required they would be able to draw from citizens who had the right to keep and bear arms. The words THE PEOPLE are used throughout the document and in every other instance they are deemed to mean each individual. Why, in the case of the Second Amendment, do these words have a different meaning?

The Washington Post laments about the upcoming court case and they are obviously in favor of a ruling indicating a collective right and therefore allowing government to make any rule it wants regarding gun ownership. The Post also indicates that if the right is determined to be an individual one then the court should give latitude so that laws may be enacted restricting those rights by regulation. The Post uses invalid arguments to make its case. They indicate that an individual right would allow people to own machine guns. People have not been allowed to own machine guns without costly permits since the early part of the last century. The Post also plainly states that the Second Amendment deserves more stringent treatment than the others (particularly the First) because words harm but bullets are lethal. All items in the Bill of Rights should be treated equally. We may not pick and choose which ones we agree with based on personal likes and dislikes. I suppose the Post would be happy if the courts decided that the press was too free and hurt too many people so they needed to be regulated.

The Washington Post takes it case further by trying to mislead its readers. The Post mocks critics of DC’s gun ban who claim that the city has high rates of gun violence despite the Draconian rules and asks how many more acts of gun violence would exist if we did not have the gun ban. That is easy to figure out but the WaPo is not interested in pursuing the answer because it will negate what they believe. All they have to do is look at the murders rates for the period before the gun ban and during the 25 years the ban has been in effect. It is easy to look at raw numbers (DC has been above pre ban raw numbers for all years but one) however, the true picture is seen when they use a per capita rate. Murders in DC have been at high levels even though population has declined which means there are more murders per 100,000 people during the ban than before it.

It is also important to note that in every state where there are shall issue rules, gun murders have declined. In every place (including overseas) where gun bans have been instituted the gun crime rate has risen and risen drastically. It is not hard to understand that criminals do not obey the law so they will not obey gun laws. That is why crime flourishes in places where there are gun bans. Criminals know that law abiding citizens will not be carrying guns so they look to “gun free” zones for easy victims. They are much more hesitant to attempt criminal activity in places where people carry guns because they know they will be met with force. The WaPo ignores these easily found facts and instead plays on emotions of its readers.

The Supreme Court needs to look past all this rhetoric and finally rule that gun ownership is an individual right and that states must institute shall issue rules. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise then there will be millions of new criminals in this country, the criminals who refuse to submit to government and surrender their weapons.

I say that if they rule gun ownership is a collective right applicable only to the militia then all members of the citizenry who are the militia should take up arms. You see, our country has already defined the militia in 10 USC 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I don’t know why there is an age limit but since the Second is an individual right, as stated in the writings of our founders, it is of little consequence. However, the gun grabbers like those at the WaPo had better be careful what they wish for. If every person who is part of the militia as defined by the federal government started demanding to carry weapons there would be nothing the grabbers could do because the court will have decided that they have that right. I wonder how the folks at the WaPo would feel knowing that their desires put guns in the hands of 17 year olds?

I am predicting that this will be ruled an individual right and that the gun grabbers will go nuts. The liberals will hate it because they want us disarmed because a disarmed people are an enslaved people.

Sources:
John Lott via Fox
Militia Laws
Gun Owners.org

Tags: gun rights, Second Amendment, supreme court