I have been sick all week, literally, with the thought of our country being run by a man who believes that redistribution of wealth leads to economic prosperity, who thinks pulling troops out of a region brimming with terrorists will make us safer, and who encourages unethical behavior in our election process by supporting groups like ACORN. I was devastated when I saw the large public mandate that sent him to the White House. I watched audience members cry as President-Elect Obama gave his victory speech last night and wanted to scream at them "wake up, Americans, this is the wrong choice!" But then it dawned on me: my party didn't give them a choice.

Defenders of freedom and personal liberties, protectors of borders and American lives, proud patriots who put God before country and country before self - Republicans are the ones who are charged with picking a qualified candidate and giving the American electorate a choice. But we didn't do that this time around. Instead, we gave them much of the same big government and intrusive politics which lost us seats in 2006. The reason I know this? Because the Republicans had the lowest turn out since Nixon - that was 30 years ago. We did not give our own supporters a real choice in this election, and our consequence will be four years of socialism.

As we accept our punishment let's never forget who we are and what our mission must be: cleansing our party of those who do not follow our principles and winning back a majority through real reform and change. The Republican Party is a broad based party with many different points of view, but while we can appreciate our internal differences we cannot forsake the basic ideals on which this party was founded. The Republican Party that I am a proud member of believes in freedom of the electorate, limiting government that keeps us safe but stays out of our lives, personal responsibility of citizens, and strong family values. Let us focus on finding candidates to run who stick to those principles, and replace those who do not.

Republicans were sent a message yesterday, and that was "stick to your values!" We lost our way when we had the majority (we didn't keep a lid on spending, we didn't even defund NPR!) However, today marks an opportunity, a chance to get our bearings, reassess our goals, and focus on the future. Now, more than ever, we need to remain steadfast in our devotion to what this country stands for, and be prepared to recapture government when the majority gets buyers remorse.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) released records showing presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama, accepted more than $3.3 million from residents of foreign countries. Under Federal election law, non-US citizens are prohibited from contributing to American campaigns. In response to this disclosure, the Republican National Committee filed a complaint with the FEC on October 6th and is calling for an official investigation into the identity of the foreign contributors. According to the records, a majority of the on-line contributors listed an overseas address or postal abbreviation that did not correspond to one of the 50 states (or is that 57?)

Over half of Senator Obama's $455 million campaign donations come in increments of under $200, which avoids the individual reporting requirements. As a result, it is impossible to tell how many more foreign contributions exist within the undisclosed data.

In contrast, Senator John McCain's campaign has made public the names all contributors, regardless of the amount given.

David Axelrod, Senator Obama's senior advisor, responded to the RNC complaint by saying "...we're probably more forthcoming about disclosure than anyone," but failed to explain the discrepancy between his statement and the campaign's practice of not identifying small donors. A spokesman for Senator Obama said the donations came online, emphasizing that "anyone can donate to the campaign through the Internet." None of these responses explain who the money came from, or acknowledges the illegal nature of accepting contributions from those outside the United States.

Even if the FEC investigates these overseas contributions, a conclusion to the investigation won't come until well after the election is over, meaning Senator Obama will be able to benefit from the use of unidentified funds through Election Day.

On Saturday, October 18, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Advocates for Faith & Freedom will hold its first Orange County event at the Hilton Irvine Hotel.  Advocates, a non-profit religious liberty legal group, is dedicated to protecting our religious liberty in the courts.  Its founder, Robert Tyler, and Advocates legal counsel Jennifer Monk have represented countless individuals and churches in important cases involving freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of expression issues.  

 

The keynote speaker for the October 18th gala will be John C. Maxwell - leadership expert, speaker and author.  The MC for the evening will be Warren Duffy former host of "Duffy and Company, Live from LA" on KKLA-FM talk radio.  The evening will also feature a live and silent auction to support the mission of Advocates.

 

For more information about the Advocates for Faith & Freedom and the event go to www.faith-freedom.com or you may contact Advocates at 1-888-588-6888.

From Capitol Weekly

Former Gov. Pete Wilson believes the California state constitution should be amended to both spare judicial candidates from responding to political groups' candidate questionnaires and urge would-be judges to keep their legal views out of politics.

Wilson's novel proposal for a ballot measure "to depoliticize the administration of justice in our state courts" stirred the conversation today at a Sacramento forum for Judicial Council of California.

The group's Commission for Impartial Courts is examining whether political contributions and an increasing campaign role by advocacy groups can undermine an independent judiciary. The issue has been ignited by a proliferation of attack ads against judges in other states and a resulting increase in fundraising by judicial candidates - leaving them open to charges of political bias that could influence rulings from the bench.

Wilson, who joined former Gov. Gray Davis in addressing the panel, urged the Legislature place to an initiative on ballot to force groups seeking to elicit views of candidates for judgeships to stamp their questionnaires with a disclaimer. It would read:

"Judicial candidates are urged by...the constitution of the state of California to consciously forebear from exercising their right of free speech by refraining to answer any question...which seeks to elicit their views."

The proposed wording goes on to say that judges who respond to such political inquiries risk undermining "the fairness and impartiality of the courts of this state" and that their response could cause them from being recused from legal cases.

Appearing at the same forum, Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson said Wilson's proposal may conflict with First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. But she said the former governor is tapping into increasing concerns over the role of interest groups seeking to influence the make-up a judiciary that is supposed to be impartial.

"I don't like going around and constantly changing the (state) constitution," Levenson said. "But I don't like that every judge is being asked to fill out these special interest questionnaires."

Levenson warned that California judges and judicial candidates will be increasingly subjected to political attacks but could risk their appearance of impartiality on the bench if they respond.

In 2005, Sacramento Judge Loren McMaster was targeted in an unsuccessful recall over his ruling upholding California's domestic partnership law. Levenson said members of the state Supreme Court who recently ruled in favor of legalizing gay marriage may face a surge of independent attack ads - particularly if voters don't reinstate a gay marriage ban in November.

"Outside groups are going to pour money into California," she said in an interview. "If they don't win in November, they're going to attack the court."

Voters confirm state Supreme Court justices in the next general election after they are appointed by the governor, and the justices come before voters again at the end of their 12-year terms.

The following is an article written by California Republican Lawyers Association and Riverside attorney Richard Brent Reed that appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Daily Journal.  Happy 4th of July!

 "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."  --  U. S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (2)    (The Suspension Clause)

 
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U. S. armed forces invaded Afghanistan to snuff out al Qaeda along with the Taliban government that nurtured that terrorist organization.  The Department of Defense set up Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT) to determine whether or not the Guantanmo detainees captured in Afghanistan, and elsewhere abroad, were "enemy combatants".  Subsequently, two, later consolidated, cases were brought by detainees: Rasul v. Bush and  Al Odah v. United States.  To head off these applications for habeas corpus, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which stated that "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to . . . consider . . . an application for . . . habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo", or so Congress thought. The Supreme Court parried with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, overriding the DTA, and Congress countered with the Military Commission Act (MCA), even more explicitly denying the privilege of habeas corpus to enemy combatants.  On June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court dealt the final blow in Boumediene v. Bush, granting habeas corpus to enemy combatants, Congress notwithstanding.
 
Declaratory Relief
 
Justice Kennedy, opining for the Boumediene majority, suggested that providing a judicial forum to detainees was vital to preserving limited government. But, American courts were not squeamish about withholding habeas corpus from the enemy during or following World War II.  Justice Kennedy, considering the jurisprudence of those days, noted that "in holding that habeas jurisdiction did not extend to enemy aliens, convicted of violating the laws of war, who were detained in a German prison during the Allied Powers' post-World War II occupation, the Court, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, stressed the practical difficulties of ordering the production of the prisoners..."  Justice Kennedy concludes, "The situation in Eisentrager was far different, given the historical context and nature of the military's mission in post-War Germany."

One difference is made clear by the language of Article I, Section 8 (11) of the Constitution, which states that Congress shall have power to "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".  (Regarding the Guantanamo prisoners, Congress made a rule--the Detainee Treatment Act--but, that rule was overruled.)  A narrow reading of Article I, Section 8 would vest exclusive jurisdiction in Congress only in the context of a declaration of war or the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal.  Such was the context of Ex Parte Quirin..
 
Operation Pastorius
 
The year was 1942; World War II was in full swing, Japan and Germany having declared war on the U. S. in December of 1941.  At a spy school somewhere near Berlin, seven saboteurs-- Werner Thiel, Herman Neubauer, Edward Kerling, Herbert Haupt, Heinrich Heinck, Ernest  Burger, and Richard Quirin--began their deadly training.  In June, 1942, the saboteurs were handed heaps of American dollars and were instructed to keep their uniforms on until they reached America..

The saboteurs, then, went to occupied France where Burger, Heinck, and Quirin met up with a man named George Dasch and boarded a German U-boat which deposited all of them on Long Island, New York during the night of June 13, 1942.   Thiel, Neubauer, Kerling, and Haupt boarded another German submarine bound for Florida.  They landed at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida on June 17.  The saboteurs carried with them explosives, fuses, timers, and plenty of greenbacks.  Burger, Heincke, and Quirin buried their uniforms on Abagansett Beach and, in civilian dress, headed for The Big Apple.  Thiel, Neubauer, Kerling, and Haupt likewise dawning civilian garb, made their way to Jacksonville, and headed for Chicago and New York.  Their mission was to blow up factories and installations vital to the war effort.

Before one bomb could be planted, however, the FBI captured the entire gang of saboteurs and handed them over to the Provost Marshal in Washington, D. C. who, at the direction of the Secretary of War, held them for trial before a Military Commission that was appointed by President Roosevelt on July 2.  On the following day, the saboteurs were charged by the Judge Advocate General with violation of the law of war and spying, among other things.
The prisoners lost no time in petitioning the court--Ex Parte Quirin 317 U.S. 1 (1942)--for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.  The D. C. District Court denied the petition, as did the Supreme Court, which explained its decision:

We have no occasion now to define with meticulous care the ultimate boundaries of the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try persons according to the law of war. It is enough that petitioners here, upon the conceded facts, were plainly within those boundaries, and were held in good faith for trial by military commission, charged with being enemies who, with the purpose of destroying war materials and utilities, entered or after entry remained in our territory without uniform-an offense against the law of war. We hold only that those particular acts constitute an offense against the law of war which the Constitution authorizes to be tried by military commission...

Everybody Out
 
Ex Parte Quirin and Johnson v. Eisentrager are distinguished from Boumediene v. Bush in two important particulars: Quirin and Eisentrager had full, adversarial trials, whereas Boumediene had only a CSRT review and; Congress had declared war in Quirin and in Eisentrager, but not in Boumediene.  (Wars were, traditionally, conducted by declaration before 1950.)  As stated on page 17 of the Boumediene Opinion, "To the extent . . . authorities suggest the common-law courts abstained altogether from matters involving prisoners of war, there was greater justification for doing so in the context of declared wars with other nation states."  Therefore, a declaration of war on Afghanistan would have placed prisoner jurisdiction, as found in Article I, Section 8, squarely in Congress.  The holding in Eisentrager states, on page 775: "A resident enemy alien is constitutionally subject to summary arrest, internment and deportation whenever a 'declared war' exists.  Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and whether he is an alien enemy.  Once these jurisdictional facts have been determined, courts will not inquire into any other issue as to his internment." For the Guantanamo detainees, the absence of a declaration of war or a formal suspension of habeas corpus left a loophole as wide as a prison door.

The Supreme Court's decision leaves the U. S. Army no safe haven for the incarceration of its prisoners of war.  In order to ensure that captured enemy combatants are not returned to the field, the army may have to resort to a "take no prisoners" policy or, if prisoners must be taken, to rendition them to some foreign jurisdiction.  In the Boumediene decision, the Supreme Court discussed federal law, international law, the law of war, and even the ancient traditions of English common law.  But the Court's analysis omitted one very important statute: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The second amendment to the Constitution reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The pro-gun lobby and the pro-gun 'restriction' lobby have debated for years who this sentence refers to: the military, private citizens or both? Today, the Supreme Court decided by a five to four vote that the right "to bear arms" is an individual right. In the majority was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy. Specifically, the court held: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

In an act of judicial restraint, Justice Scalia concludes the opinion of the court in District of Columbia v. Heller, by stating "[I]t is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second amendment extinct." The slightly leaning conservative court definitely heighlighted today the importance of the judicial branch, and why it is imperative to elect Senator McCain President in November.