War and the Courts

This is one of the best and most important articles I've read all year. Read it all the way through. Every word. Twice.

Our courts have long been activist, but only recently have they become imperialist. Activism can be reversed, but if we allow the judiciary to effectively eliminate the separation of powers with regard to the conduct of war - there will be no going back. We can stop this by electing presidents who will appoint Justices that understand and accept the constitutional limitations of their position.

Here's a sample:

...The Framers did not include federal judges as participants in our national defense. The judiciary was formed as a part of our government, to protect American citizens from violations of their liberties by their own elected representatives....They are not supposed to be a forum to empower non-Americans — particularly alien enemies of our people — to invalidate actions taken in our national defense.

Our defense against foreign enemies is a political matter, not a legal one. To put it bluntly, it is none of the judges’ business. It is for the people’s representatives to decide — with the president holding the preeminent role as commander-in-chief, subject to the capacity of Congress to remove the president by impeachment [or] to shut off funding for...missions of which it does not approve, and the capacity of the American people at election time to remove the president and/or members of Congress who go either too far or not far enough in safeguarding our nation.

The courts, by contrast, are not politically accountable to the American people. That is why judges were given no role in national security. Self-defense is the natural right of nations. Without it, there is no liberty. In our system — the system of a free, self-determining people — the political branches were given plenary power over our defense. The courts were given no power. That was intentional: It created an accountability nexus between the officials making national-defense decisions and the people whose lives hung in the balance.

If we do not return to that arrangement, we are not free and we cannot defend ourselves.
...
We must face down the courts’ despotic reinterpretation of “separation of powers.” Government action is not illegitimate simply because it lacks the judicial imprimatur; judicial action is illegitimate if it intrudes into areas committed by the Constitution to the political branches or the states.
...
Republicans should make clear that the president should not comply with judicial rulings issued under circumstances where Congress has divested the courts of jurisdiction. Regarding enemy combatants, Congress has so divested the courts in the Military Commissions Act. Congress’s control of federal court jurisdiction is the rule of law, and where the judges fail to live within that constitutional framework, their decisions should be ignored.

This is not a betrayal of what the Left calls “our values.” It is a reaffirmation of our principles. It will still be necessary to treat our captives humanely. But it will be for us through our accountable representatives, not for the courts, to draw the lines between national security and due process for the enemy. Unless we declare our national-security independence from unaccountable judges, we will no longer be governed by our Constitution, we will no longer control our own defense, and we will no longer be free.

Breaking News: The Sun Affects Global Temperatures!

Jonah Goldberg is just awesome. His article about the effect of sunspots on global temperatures is careful to avoid hasty scientific conclusions while pointing out the sheer zealotry on display from proponents of anthropogenic climate change.

Here's my favorite part:

...[H]umility and skepticism [among the scientific community] seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don’t, it’s a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.

No, I’m not denying that man-made pollution and other activity have played a role in planetary warming since the Industrial Revolution.

But we live in a moment when we are told, nay lectured and harangued, that if we use the wrong toilet paper or eat the wrong cereal, we are frying the planet. But the sun? Well, that’s a distraction. Don’t you dare forget your reusable shopping bags, but pay no attention to that burning ball of gas in the sky — it’s just the only thing that prevents the planet from being a lifeless ball of ice engulfed in darkness. Never mind that sunspot activity doubled during the 20th century, when the bulk of global warming has taken place.
...
[M]aybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to “solve” a problem we don’t understand so well.

Cal Thomas on Teddy Kennedy

Cal Thomas is one of the few columnists who seems to truly understand the way christian conviction informs conservative idealogy. Most use faith as a crutch to prop-up their political convictions, but Thomas's faith always seems to precede his political conclusions. His article on Teddy Kennedy's passing is, I think, the way Christians ought to respond - although most (myself included) would probably take a bit more pleasure in pointing out Kennedy's flaws/crimes.

For me, this article highlights the important distinction between discernment and judgment, or as Thomas puts it "Judgment and Judgmentalism." Kennedy did lots of terrible things. God has empowered us and expects us to watch the actions of others with a critical eye - to identify behaviors that are wrong, call attention to them, denounce them, and encourage others to do the same. But God also expects this to be done out of love, not pride or vindictiveness.

Thomas says:

Many on the Right invoke the name of Jesus on Sunday and tear down a politician whose policies they don't like the rest of the week. Tearing down policy is fine, but diminishing the value of a fellow human simply because you don't like his politics (or his personal behavior) is not a good strategy for persuading him to change either.
...
This is not to absolve Senator Kennedy of his sins, only to say that we are neither the judge, nor the one who can absolve. We can't forgive ourselves, or as I put it to a TV interviewer who asked me "bottom line: Senator Kennedy, a good man?"

"Only God is good," I responded. "The rest of us are sinners."

It is not hypocritical to care for someone who behaves badly. In fact, it is the height of love to do so because you want him to have a changed life and attitude that will help him behave better for his own sake and that of his family. Denouncing that person and condemning him to Hell is not likely to make him more open to things that will lead him in the other direction. Who among us has lived a perfect life that would be acceptable to God?
...
I strongly opposed much of what Senator Kennedy proposed, but I cared for him as a person. Those without sin...