This is absolutely overdue, and should be matched by every state in the union.

I’m curious to see, though, what their delegation to Congress had to say about this.

Hat tip to The Political Inquirer.

A couple of articles by Jim Manzi at the NRO that warrant reading. They’re chiefly on where the paths of Libertarians and Conservatives should cross and why they should not so much time bickering back and forth over “Social Conservatism” vs. “Fiscal Conservatism.”

The first article, and most recent is on the Christian Right’s approach to gay marriage, where he suggests that a better approach to the issue from the “against” side would most definitely be a renewed call for “federalism” as opposed to a Constitutional Amendment.

The second article (written a couple months back) is a general exposition of that concept, or more generally the concept of subsidiarity, which is the principal that nothing should be done by a more complex or larger organization which can be just as easily and efficiently done by a smaller or simpler organization. In the case of federalism, that means if issues can be as competently or more competently handled at the State or local level, than it should be.

Although I agree with Mr. Manzi wholeheartedly, I can’t stress enough how hard of a concept it is for the “Big L” Libertarian movement to see eye-to-eye, even on this issue, with the “Big C” Christian movement.

For an even BETTER idea of how hard that is, you need look no further than the Libertarian and Constitution Parties (www.lp.org and www.constitutionparty.org respectively). Both organizations have excellent platforms, 96.3 percent of which is virtually identical, but they disagree on one minor thing:

Religion and Morality. The Libertarian party literally has NO position on morality other than that the Government (any Government) should not regulate it, and its position on Freedom of Religion has more to do with taxes than with religion (shocking). Meanwhile the Constitution Party’s first words in its preamble are: “The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”

And since a LARGE percentage of the U.S. population bases a good chunk of its life, liberty, and personal interaction, on moral principles, for two “right-wing” political movement to either a) not acknowledge the need for such nonsense, or b) only accept one version of it, means that subsidiarity may not be the easiest approach in and of itself. First there needs to be some common ground one the role, definition, and influence of our public officials (and each other) in the realm of religion and morality.

SCOTUS decided on the 25th of March on the Medellin v. Texas case. Essentially it asserts that International Treaties (in this case, the U.N. Vienna Convention) are not automatically enforceable judicially, and the wording of the treaty itself can be used to determine whether the law must be codified by Executive or Legislative action.

The Vienna Convention held that foreign nationals needed to be notified of their right to consult their consulate if they were arrested and charged. The justice system in Texas had not offered Medellin that right, so he brought it up on appeal in the U.S. District Court, and it eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court.

I’m of the opinion that Justice Roberts (and the other four in the majority) have this right, legally. There’s a little debate at the Federalist Society which is interesting. If you can make your way through the legal stuff, (and if I can…you can) you’ll see those that support the decision have a pretty strong argument.

As always, though, with these international cases, I try to pretend that if an American was in another country and committed a heinous crime, would I want them to be extradited? Would it depend on the crime? Or would it depend on the country? Or neither?

It’s an interesting case.

OK…A little healthy, or unhealthy, mix of entertainment and political theory. Bear with me.

Believe it or not, I’ve put a lot of thought lately (meaning about the last 4 years or so) into how important it is for us to think deeply about why we believe what we believe, and why seeing different perspectives is not only useful, but absolutely necessary to put our own views in their proper context.

With that in mind, let me reiterate what I’ve pointed out in a previous post, and this will likely become a recurring theme of mine:

Maybe the problem is that the “Conservative” three-legged stool should NOT be:

• Free Markets
• Christian Fundamentalism
• Peace through Strength.

But should instead be:

• Limited and Enumerated Government
• Community and Family Values
• National Sovereignty

…Without this perspective Conservatives look like either: 1) warmongers, 2) greedy money-grubbers, or 3) fanatic proselytes. (As opposed to Environmentalist Wackos, Feminazis, and Peaceniks)…

The above was my ranting about the quick narrowing of alternatives on the Republican side of the ticket for the Presidency, however, there are several things that I have observed over the last 6 weeks or so that has crystallized my thinking even further. Those events were these:

A trip to Richmond to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Capitol where the most striking moment of the day (for me anyway) was reading this inscription on the statue of Robert E Lee, planted six steps into the chambers where he actually stood to say these words:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

Profoundly impressed with the solemnity of the occasion, for which I must say I was not prepared, I accept the position assigned me by your partiality. I would have preferred had your choice fallen upon an abler man. Trusting in Almighty God, an approving conscience, and the aid of my fellow-citizens, I devote myself to the service of my native State, in whose behalf alone will I ever again draw my sword.

Now, I had heard that quote before, but seeing it on his statue right there in the Chambers put a huge lump in my throat. I stood speechless for a moment and tried to understand what he must have gone through. I sincerely hope I never REALLY have to understand it. If any reading this has not read a thorough history of Robert E Lee, then we will have a hard time having a conversation about what it truly means to be an American. He is in my mind one of our great Patriots. If you think that’s just crazy, well…too bad.

Another “event” was catching (sporadically) back episodes of Jericho on HD and the new season on CBS. Never has a fictional show made me think more about the role of my Federal Government. If you haven’t watched this show…please do so. Regardless of your political perspective, it’s an excellent warning about how dangerous it is for us to place so much authority and responsibility on bureaucrats hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Add to the above (in random order): The SCOTUS taking on the DC gun ban; Newt Gingrich’s speech at CPAC; a local project I worked on titled–”Ensuring a Sense of Community in Loudoun County” (long story); of course, the unlikely successes and lack thereof, of Governor Huckabee; and lastly a few chapters into “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg…

…And I have come to the conclusion that what is really missing from the “Conservative movement,” the “Reagan Coalition,” or perhaps a NEW collective, starts with fundamental belief in the following:

• Having strong self-reliant communities where simple (dare I say “traditional”) values of that community are encouraged and supported by neighbors instead of enforced by the Government.
• A simple and direct foreign (and border) policy, which certainly respects the sovereignty of other countries, but first and foremost places our OWN sovereignty, safety, and indeed prosperity on the TOP of the priority list (as we would expect other countries to put THEIR rights and THEIR welfares on top of THEIR priority list).
• A health, education, and welfare system with a “bottom-up” approach instead of a “top-down” approach, where States, local communities, and families have ALL of the authority and all of the responsibility over the health, education, and welfare of their citizens and families. The Federal Government’s role in these areas would be limited to that of promoting “best practices” among the Republic, and would instead focus its attention on that which is in its purview, including the task of making sure that fundamental Constitutional rights of individual citizens are not infringed upon.

Am I simply in a dream world, or do these sound like universally Constitutional and classically liberal values? If not, what am I missing? Are these concepts outdated? Impossible in a “modern world”?  If they are appropriate–why is it that these values have been completely lost on the leadership of both major political parties?

And lastly? What can be done about this disconnect?

I just don’t know what to say to this…all I know is I saw Marion Berry on the news saying, “Uh…Tell ‘em ‘No’”

Warrantless searches in DC.

The Supreme Court is about to strike your 2nd Amendment ban, so obviously it makes tons of sense to go ahead and violate the 4th Amendment as well.

Personally, I don’t like this at all. Just tick off a doctor or fail to pay your doctor’s bill and suddenly, you will lose a constitutional right. You may want to start asking your physician which party he belongs to before you visit that doctor.

Your doctor could put you on no-gun list
Congress fast-tracks plan to let physicians ban weapons ownership

The House of Representatives has fast-tracked new legislation to “improve” the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by allowing doctors to now decide who can own firearms.
The proposal, H.R. 2640, was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., in the wake of the April tragedy at Virginia Tech, when a gunman shot and killed more than 30 people, then killed himself.
McCarthy, whose own husband was killed in a random shooting on a commuter train in New York City in 1993, introduced the “NICS Improvement Act,” which sailed through the House in three days.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56311