The court found that the law was not unconstitutional “on its face.” Opponents of the law charged that it was clearly and blatantly unconstitutional and that was the basis of the various court rulings to date. This does not preclude a particular woman from filing suit based on her particular circumstances, claiming that in her case the procedure is the best option.

This case illustrates the importance of judicial nominees. The deciding factor was Justice Alito who replaced retiring Justice O’Connor. O’Connor had been the deciding vote in favor of the pro abortion side to date. With Alito going the other direction the door seems open to further erosion of Roe v Wade.

For those who believe there is no appreciable difference between Republicans and Democrats I refer you to this decision. President Bush may well have one more Supreme Court appointment and the next President will certainly have one or two. Who is appointed is of monumental importance. There is no better or more important legacy of a president. Justices Roberts and Alito will be on the Supreme Court long after President Bush has gone back to Texas. Many of President Bush’s actions will be forgotten or overturned by subsequent Congresses. But his Supreme Court appointments will still be deciding cases.

The ’08 elections are approaching. As you consider who to support or which party you think should lead this country, do not forget the importance of judicial nominees. Hundreds of judges are appointed in a typical presidential term. Seriously consider what kind of justices you want on federal district courts and the Supreme Court. That really matters.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As you can see, Giuliani’s idea of strict constructionist doesn’t exactly match up with most conservatives. In his view, as with so many others on the court today, stare decisis trumps the Constitution! So bad law and bad jurisprudence should stand simply because it has been around a while?

If that view had prevailed in times past, separate but equal would still be the law of the land. The Dred Scott case would still be precedent! In my view, while stare decisis is important, it is not and should not be the final word.

Giuliani also stands by his positions on partial birth abortion and federal funding of abortions. He supports both. Oh he gives the standard, “I don’t like and want to see less of it” speech but the bottom line is, Giuliani supports all abortion at any time during pregnancy for any reason or no reason at all.

One is hard pressed to see how Giuliani can possibly get the Republican nomination with such views. Social conservatives are not likely to vote for him when they know his positions. While Giuliani has enjoyed an early lead, most voters haven’t really known where he stands on many issues. As more interviews like the one above are seen and read about by conservatives, Giuliani’s numbers will fall precipitously as conservatives realize that he is a social liberal. He does not stand a chance.

My first question is, what does co-equal mean? The Constitution grants specific duties and authority to each branch of government. While there is some overlap, generally each branch has different responsibilities and powers than the other branches. Congress, for example, has the power to create and pass legislation. The President and the judiciary do not. The President, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces while the Congress and the judiciary are not. In what sense then can the three branches of government be said to be co-equal?

I submit that the very term “co-equal” is meaningless and that those using it do so not out of any realistic claims to authority but to put forth a propaganda campaign to a populace largely uneducated with regard to constitutional powers and the structure of government. They simply make a claim and expect Americans to accept it. The fact is, no branch is equal to another branch. All branches of government are equally important but they are not equal any more than an apple equals an orange.

Congress does indeed have one large power that could be used to effectively end the war in Iraq. That power is the ability to cut off funding. Our founding fathers gave them that power and it is completely legitimate. Using it, however, is a politically risky proposition. While Congress can cut of funding for the war, that does not obligate the President to bring the troops home. The President could, for example, continue the campaign in Iraq without funding and place the responsibility for the outcome on the Congress. At this juncture it is doubtful that Congress will take such a drastic step.

What other constitutional power does Congress have with regard to the war? None. Congress can pass non-binding resolutions every day for the duration of the session and their actions will not require anything of the President. He can go on his way doing what he is doing. True, they can make him pay a political price but they have no authority to force him to do anything militarily.

Claims that Congress has the authority to limit troops in this or that theater are false. True, Congress can pass any legislation it wants, including legislation mandating that the President limit troop strengths. The President, however, would be under no obligation to pay any attention to such legislation because the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority for passing it.

The caveat here is the judiciary. Regardless of Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for upholding legislation that is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is but one example. So in any action the Congress may take, the Supreme Court becomes a wild card.

In the event that Congress passes legislation restricting troop strengths, the President would have several options. He could ignore such legislation and do what he thinks best with the troops in which case Congress would almost certainly sue the President in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the President could sue Congress immediately. Either course leads to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule against the President in such a situation, I submit that the President would have the Constitutional authority to ignore such a ruling. Indeed, the judiciary depends entirely on the executive for enforcement of its decisions. If the courts make a decision that clearly violates the Constitution I submit that the President not only has the ability to go against it, he has the duty to do so.

Lest anyone think I am engaging in partisan hyperbole let me say that my view on this does not depend on who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. While I would likely disagree with much of what a Democrat President stood for, his Constitutional authority does not depend on his positions on issues or his party affiliation. By definition, constitutional authority derives from the Constitution. Therefore, any President is duty bound to take his oath of office seriously and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. That includes the courts when they blatantly disregard the Constitution in favor of their own ideology.

The bottom line is this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such it falls to him how and when to use them. Congress can bluster all it wants but they cannot change that balance of power.

’08 is a long way off. I don’t know about you but I’m not prepared to spend two years in campaign mode. While the ’08 elections are important, there is little any of us can do today to impact them. But there are many other issues to be looked at and dealt with in the mean time.

For one thing, with dems in control of the Senate we know right off that judicial appointments will be far more difficult for President Bush. It is likely that there will be one more vacancy on the Supreme Court in the next two years and I expect the President to avoid judicial activists and appoint someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than superimpose his/her own ideology on it. That will, of course, mean a battle. It will be difficult to even get such a nominee through the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to be prepared for that fight because it is likely to be coming. Even for normal appointments to the federal bench there will be much difficulty.

Comprehensive immigration reform now seems much more likely. Conservatives oppose reforms so far offered and those are just the kinds of reforms that will be offered again. Amnesty, by what ever name, will sail through both Houses of Congress and the President is likely to sign such legislation. Unless we are prepared with strong grassroots efforts to stop it, it will be a slam dunk.

Future Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated the raising the minimum wage will be a top priority. Few issues have been subject to such demagoguery than the minimum wage. And few issues are so poorly understood by the electorate. We know that any significant increase in the minimum wage will have two effects. First, it will increase unemployment for those at the bottom of the wage scale. Second, it will further slow the economy when it has already been slowed too much by aggressive fed interest rate policy. If Democrats are not checked, we will likely be headed into a new recession. That might be good for Republican prospects in ’08 but it isn’t good for the American people and only strong grassroots efforts can stop it.

The biggest and by far most important issue is the war with Islamic fascism. To date, Democrats have appeared not to take it seriously, preferring to handle terrorist events through law enforcement. If dems truly believe what they’ve preached, they will work diligently to get us out of this war and hunkered down back home. If that should happen, we will see many more 9/11 style attacks on the US. Again, this may be good for Republican prospects in ’08 but it is decidedly bad for American and we have to do whatever we can to prevent such an eventuality.

It is incumbent on all of us to communicate with our members of Congress and let them know that we will not sit back and allow them to make America vulnerable. Most conservatives I know have a pretty good understanding of the enemy we face. It is an enemy that only understands strength and weakness. It is an enemy that will interpret any move by the US to withdraw as a sign that our will is failing us and that will embolden them. Indeed, they are already taking credit for the Republican defeat and for Rumsfeld’s resignation. In the coming days look for the Islamic fascists to move aggressively to increase and consolidate the power this election has given them.

We face dark and dangerous days ahead. We must face them with resolve and determination. I believe that all of civilization is threatened and we must face that threat head on and unified. To this point we have been anything but unified. I desperately hope that it will not take a few more 9/11 style attacks to convince the electorate that we cannot win unless we are united.

We will face these and other issues over the next two years. All of us must work to educate ourselves. No one is going to come to us and teach us what the truth is on any of these issues. The one thing you can count on politicians to do is demagogue the issues. Even the best of them is driven by elections and they are motivated to do and say what they think is necessary to be reelected. If we want to know the truth we have to do the work to discover it. We have to research the issues. We have to educate ourselves so we understand what is at stake and so we can, in turn, work to educate others. I’ve always believed that truth ultimately prevails over lies and deceit but that can only be true when people know the truth.

Back in 2004 I wrote a piece on campaign finance reform that rightly pointed out the unconstitutionality and hypocrisy of that legislation. It is a well documented piece and worth reading again.

Now that we are approaching another election season, the problems and conflicts that legislation creates are before us once again. Well blogger Kim du Toit has a great idea that I intend to follow (H/T Dean’s World). Here is Kim’s plan:

Here’s my promise: If a conservative organization wants to run a political ad criticizing any Congressman up for re-election during that 60-day window, I’ll let them run one on this website, for free, right up until Election Day.

And if Congress or for that matter law enforcement think that I’m going to refrain from criticizing an elected or wannabe-elected official, ever, they’re sadly mistaken.

As a supporter of the Constitution I make the same promise Kim made. Any conservative organization may run ads on my site critical of any politician right up until election day. Along with Kim, I don’t care what the FEC or the FCC or anyone else has to say about it. My governing authority is the Constitution which says:

Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added)

Kim and all those who oppose the assault on the Constitution, I am with you!