Feddie's blog
Posted at 1:24pm on Mar. 26, 2008 Feddie v. Publius: Original Meaning and the Second Amendment
By Feddie
While it is true that the "colonial era has passed," the colonial Constitution is still with us. You may recall that "we the people" entered into a compact of sorts vis-a-vis this Constitution, and agreed to certain terms. We also recognized certain natural rights "retained" by the people, some of which were enumerated. One of those rights was to right to "bear arms." And while I understand that you and others like to think that there is a case to be made for viewing the Second Amendment as a collective-based right (i.e., that the people only have the right to own guns as members of a militia), no legal scholar worth his salt really believes that to be the case. Heck, even Larry Tribe has conceded the obvious. But why take his word for it. Let's see what Justice Joseph Story has to say on the matter, shall we?:
Posted in Law | Originalism | Second Amendment — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:42pm on Nov. 20, 2004 A bluestater expresses his love for the South
By Feddie
This comment was left as a "rebel yell" to over at my regular blog, Southern Appeal:
F*ck the South. F*ck 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.
Posted in Archived — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:19pm on Nov. 19, 2004 Chief Justice Scalia?
By Feddie
While traveling to Savannah today (to meet with a new client), I was listening to NPR and almost had to pull over to the side of the road. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), the new senate minority leader, stated that he hoped President Bush would not nominate Justice Clarence Thomas as the next chief justice. And then he said something that stunned me (and I am paraphrasing here): "But if the president were to nominate Antonin Scalia, that would be another matter. Although I don't always agree with Justice Scalia, I cannot deny his brilliance."
Wow. Chief Justice Antonin Scalia. I really like the sound of that. I never thought it was even a remote possibility; but I think the dems are clearly sending the president a message with Reid's statement: Anybody but Thomas.
Well, I prefer Thomas, but Scalia will certainly do. :)
Update: Here's the audio (starts at 3:18 and ends at 3:34). What Senator Reid actually said was:
"If they [Republicans], for example, gave us Clarence Thomas as chief justice, I personally feel that would be wrong. If they give us Antonin Scalia, that's a little different question. I may not agree with some of his opinions, but I agree with the brilliance of his mind."
Cross-posted at Southern Appeal.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:26pm on Oct. 25, 2004 Reason No. 1,345,678 why the NYT cannot be taken seriously
By Feddie
What say you now, Senator Kerry? You stupid twit.
Posted in Archived — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:04pm on Oct. 21, 2004 "Kerry losing points with Catholics"
By Feddie
Robert Novak has an excellent opinion piece in today's Chicago Sun-Times, in which he addresses the anxiety of pro-life Catholics over the prospect of a Kerry presidency. Here's a taste:
For all of his new emphasis on his Catholicism, Sen. Kerry violates the church's "foundational" belief with blanket opposition to all anti-abortion measures . . . . Kerry rejects protection of life "through humane public policy" and . . . "his frequent declaration that he "was an altar boy" is not enough to dispel Catholics' concerns."
Those concerns are intensified by the campaign of the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy. While Kennedy 44 years ago did not want to call attention to his religion, Kerry stresses his Catholicism -- an emphasis not apparent in his Massachusetts campaigns the last three decades. He says he accepts the Catholic doctrine that "life begins at conception" but will not impose it on others.
"Catholics with a little catechism and logic know better" . . . . Kerry "for 20 years, on matters most fundamental to Catholics, has been consistently wrong" and "is among the fervent supporters of abortion in the Senate." The confirmation came in the Tempe, Ariz., debate when he answered a question about Roe v. Wade: "I'm not going to appoint a judge to the court who's going to undo a constitutional right."
Indeed.
To my fellow Catholics, I say this: John Kerry is not one of us. He may have a Catholic background, but he willfully rejects fundamental Church teaching on the most important moral issues of our time (i.e., abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human closing, and gay marriage). He is, to put it plainly, not the sort of person who possess the character necessary to be president of the United States. The Church has suffered enough scandal of late. We do not need to compound the problems we have by electing a man who claims our faith, but in no way embraces or adheres to it.
Finally, allow me to address in advance the typical talking points that my non-Catholic (or CINO), Kerry-loving friends will no doubt wish to advance as a rejoinder to this post.
(1) What about President Bush's support of the death penalty and the Iraq War? The Pope is against the death penalty, and he spoke out against the Iraq War as well. Why is the abortion issue any more important than the death penalty or war?
Answer: Courtesy of Dr. Timothy Furnish
None of those who advance the death penalty and (Iraq) war issues as somehow analogous to abortion, and thus equally worthy of condemnation by the Catholic episcopate, seem to have taken the time to open the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995). Regarding the death penalty, the Catechism says "the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty" (section 2266). As for war, it was the Catholic Church in ancient times that devised the famous conditions for just war, which are spelled out in the Catechism: 1) an aggressor must have inflicted "lasting, grave and serious damage;" 2) non-violent means must have proved "impractical or ineffective;" 3) there must be "serious prospects of success;" and 4) the conflict "must not produce evils...graver than the evil to be eliminated" (section 2309). Now while many Catholic bishops, priests and laypeople oppose the death penalty and the Iraq war, arguing that just war conditions were not met--and in fact, Pope John Paul II himself spoke out against the U.S. invasion of Iraq--the point is that official Catholic doctrine is not ipso facto against execution or war.
Contrast that with what the Catechism says regarding abortion: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable....Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against humanity" (section 2272). Abortion, then--contrary to what critics say--is qualitatively different under Catholic doctrine from the other two issues. No exception has ever been allowed for abortion, whereas capital punishment and warfare are sometimes morally justified.
(2) What right does the Catholic Church (or for that matter Catholics) have to speak out on any moral issue given the scandalous behavior of some of its priests over the years?
Answer: While the first objection I noted generally stems from ignorance, this objection shows the true colors of liberals who truly loathe the Catholic Church (notwithstanding any work that it might do in the "social justice" arena).
Some Catholic priests are sinners? You don't say? Look, I am not, by any means, attempting to downplay the heinous sins committed by certain Catholic priests. Those actions were despicable, and I condemn them in the strongest terms possible.
That having been said, the portrayal of the abuse scandal by the mainstream media has been nothing short of scandalous itself.
In a study conducted by the well-respected John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, researchers determined that "about 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor." Moreover, "[a] majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty."
Once again, I am not in any way attempting to minimize the evil actions taken by certain rouge priests over the years. What I am saying is that the foregoing study demonstrates that the mainstream media and Hollywood have been less than fair in their portrayal of the abuse scandal.
Moreover, it would appear that the sexual abuse of minors is far worse in the public school system. One has to wonder what sort of statistics would turn up in that setting if public schools were given the same level of scrutiny as the Catholic Church has received in the media.
In any event, the point is this: It is ridiculous to argue that the evil actions of a few rouge priests preclude the Catholic Church or Catholics from speaking out on important moral issues or from rebuking members who willfully reject fundamental Church teaching.
Posted in Archived — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:46pm on Oct. 8, 2004 Bush on Dred Scott
By Feddie
One of my cringe moments during the debate was when President Bush got a little lost in the "Who would you appoint to the Supreme Court" question. Here's the relevant text:
GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson, over here.
MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?
BUSH: I'm not telling.
(LAUGHTER)
I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(LAUGHTER)
I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
Thank you.
O.k., let's concede the obvious: Bush is clearly not comfortable with this topic. And that's problematic, because to people like me the future composition of the Supreme Court (and that of the entire federal judiciary) is one of the most important issues at stake in this election.
That having been said, the foregoing text makes clear that President Bush was pointing to two cases that he considers to be extreme examples of judicial activism (Tip to the President's advisors: Tell the president to use those words "judicial activism," not "personal opinion"). I respectfully disagree with the president that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Newdow fits that characterization (as an original matter: yes, under the Supreme Court's current Establishment Clause jurisprudence: no). Dred Scott, on the other hand, IS an excellent example of judicial activism (at the time the decision was rendered). Take it away, Judge Bork:
How did [Supreme Court Justice] Taney know that slave ownership was a constitutional right? Such a right is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. He knew it because he was passionately convinced that it must be a constitutional right. Though his transformation of the due process clause from a procedural to a substantive requirement was an obvious sham, it was a momentous sham, for this was the first appearance in American constitutional law of the concept of "substantive due process," and that concept has been used countless times since by judges who want to write their personal beliefs into a document that, most inconveniently, does not contain those beliefs.
So, Bush's citation of Dred Scott as an example of judicial activism is actually quite impressive. As usual, the president was right on the substance, but less than stellar in the style department.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:05pm on Sep. 24, 2004 How many Supreme Court vacancies are at stake in this election?
By Feddie
Promoted from Diaries.
A fellow blogger emailed me recently to ask -- as an avid Supreme Court watcher -- how many vacancies I expected might occur during the next presidential term. Specifically, he asked about the average age of retirement for Supreme Court justices in the modern era. Having not seen any analysis on the topic, I decided to do a little research. Here's what I found with a little help from the good folks at Oyez.
Read on.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:42am on Sep. 2, 2004 The myth of the Zell "meltdown"
By Feddie
My fellow conservatives, do not mistake righteous indignation for a "meltdown."
The best thing for the Bush campaign would be for the mainstream media to start questioning Zell's sanity and throwing words like "meltdown" around. You think you've seen a "Solid South" in past presidential elections? Heck, you ain't seen nuthin' if the liberal media and Kerry dems start up with a belittling, condescending spin campaign against Zell's speech and visible anger at liberal pundits afterwards. Go ahead. Do it. I dare you. You'll regret it. Southerners close ranks, and we take care of our own. And Zell is most definitely one of us.
Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 8:19pm on Sep. 1, 2004 Give em' Hell Zell!
By Feddie
This is going to be good.
My favorite quotes thus far (some may not be exact):
"I am here because my family is more important than my party."
"Nothing makes this marine madder than [dems] calling our troops occupiers!"
"It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom of speech."
"In their warped way of thinking, [dems] believe that America is the problem."
"And no pair [of senators], has been more wrong, more often, than the two senators from Massachusetts, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy."
"This is the man who wants to be the commander of our armed forces [poses question after listing all the military weapons/programs Kerry opposed]? Armed with what? Spitballs?"
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:31pm on Sep. 1, 2004 What's your definition of treason?
By Feddie
Josh Marshall takes a cheap shot at the fine citizens of South Carolina:
I'm here in Madison Square Garden and I just heard the head of the South Carolina delegation announce their votes and add that South Carolina is the "most patriotic state" in the country. But of course South Carolina was also the seedbed and the leader of the only organized treason in the country's history.
Posted in Archived — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:56am on Jul. 27, 2004 Bush to pick Rudy Giuliani as VP?
By Feddie
Promoted from Diaries.
That's the claim of the National Enquirer. Yeah, I know, who cares? The Enquirer's journalistic credibility is, in a word, nonexistent (although this rumor has been swirling around for some time now).
That having been said, I've had a gut feeling, for some time now, that Dick Cheney might drop off the ticket before the Republican National Convention. And who better to replace Cheney than universally admired and respected, Rudy Giuliani, right? Wrong.
Read on.
Posted in Archived — Comments (75) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:19pm on Jul. 20, 2004 Georgia U.S. Senate race, the breakdown thus far
By Feddie
O.k., Cain fans. Here's the scoop:
As of the time of this posting, here is the breakdown:
28% of precincts reporting Votes Percentage
Herman Cain 40,244--25.8%
Mac Collins 30,966--19.8%
Johnny Isakson 84,970--54.4%
What is interesting is that Cain is making a respectable showing in ATL area counties, such as: Barrow, Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, and DeKalb (to name just a few); and he is doing extremely well in big outside-ATL counties like Chatham (Savannah).
I am feeling fairly positive about the early returns.
BTW, some of y'all might be interested in this map of Georgia (which does a county-by-county breakdown of the state).
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:43pm on Jul. 20, 2004 Republican ballot?! We don't have no stinkin' Republican ballots!
By Feddie
What's really sad is that this doesn't surprise me at all:
I'm an African American who lives in a predominantly African-American precinct. I told the pollsters that I wished to vote Republican (supporting Herman Cain)and filled out a blue form. However, I was still given a Democratic ballot. When I informed the pollsters, one commented that I should just go ahead and vote on the Democratic ballot because "That's what you should be doing, anyway." The scary part is that SHE WAS SERIOUS. I eventually got the Republican ballot.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:48pm on Jul. 16, 2004 Johnny Isakson's plays hardball
By Feddie
I just got back from the Herman Cain rally here in Macon. I'd say about 40 or so people showed up. Not bad for 3:00 p.m. on a Friday. Anyway, Cain was great, folks. He is the real deal, which is quite rare these days.
On a related matter, Johnny Isakson is starting to get really desperate. He dropped a glossy color print ad here in Macon today that contains numerous misrepresentations of Cain's record.
Here are front and back images of Isakson's mailer on Cain:
isaksonad-1.jpg
ISAKSO~2.jpg
The details: First, Isakson claims that Cain "ran for president against George W. Bush." Cain says he flirted with the idea of running for president for one month, and did so before Bush even formally announced.
Johnny also asserts that "[w]hile living in Nebraska, Cain dropped his own [one month] presidential run and endorsed Bush's opponent." The truth: Cain supported Steve Forbes until Forbes dropped out, and then he fully supported Bush as the Republican nominee. While I was an early supporter of Bush's (I donated money to his exploratory committee), I understand and respect that it took a while for many of my conservative friends to come around.
Next, Isakson maintains that Cain "stood with Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy to extend Iraq handover deadline." This is simply not true. What Cain said was that it was the president's choice whether to extend the deadline; that he was the commander-in-chief and would do what was in America's best interest.
Finally, and this is the worst of the lot IMHO, Isakson asserts that Cain "donated money to pro-choice democrat Senator Kerrey." You'll note the spelling of the last name. Cain gave $250 back in (I think) 1991 or 1993 to (former) Senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska due to his pro-business policies.
Unbelievable.
Please tell everyone you know from Georgia to vote for Herman Cain, Georgia's next U.S. senator.
Posted in Archived — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:01pm on Jul. 15, 2004 Why the latest Cain-Isakson poll is sheer nonsense
By Feddie
Real Clear Politics is reporting that a new poll has Johnny Isakson up by 26 percentage points over Herman Cain (i.e., 46% to 20%). I've done a little digging and spoken with some people "in the know," and I can tell y'all without hesitation that the group that conducted this poll is going to quite embarrassed on July 20th. Here's the lowdown:
(1) The poll was not released with any accompanying details (sample size, types of voters, etc.);
(2) Johnny Isakson's website says nothing, nada, zilch about this poll. Gee, I wonder why that is . . .;
(3) An extremely reliable source informs me that Isakson's internal polling shows the race within single digits, and Cain closing fast; and
(4) Isakson is spending all of his time in Georgia until the primary (mostly mirroring Cain's travel schedule), and has missed several key votes on border protection, homeland security issues, defense appropriations, etc. If Johnny Boy is up by 26 percentage points, he sure isn't acting like it.
In sum, for you doubting Thomases out there, I stand by my prediction: Cain will ultimately win the GOP Senate nomination (and he may even win outright on July 20th).
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »
