It is time to reference Boumediene v. Bush (2008) in which foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war — a war in fact authorized by the Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-In-Chief under Article II, Section 2 — possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court.
Judges have now began to sharply expand upon this role. As a result, every policy debate taking place within government, at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.
Then there is the Ninth Amendment. Justice Markman writes:
Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Many 21st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.
Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decisionmakers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges detecting such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”
The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people had implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to thefederal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.
Transnationalists:
It is their belief that international and domestic laws are merging into global laws. Nationalists claim that local national law applies. Future SCOTUS appointments will determine just how much sovereign law is displaced by overarching interests.
Transnationalism is a word that should alert all possible bells and klaxons and tones. If accepted and enacted, transnationalism would legitimize reliance by American judges upon foreign law in giving meaning to the binding of federal and state governments to international treaties and agreements never formally ratified by the United States Senate — much less enacted into law by our Congress.
Each and every incident of “war crimes” and “violations of the earth” would be prosecutable, as complicit by the US.
This is and would be, the ruination of our entire nation.
We HOLD power.
Whatever we GIVE AWAY, that is our determination.
President Lincoln said “Would we be far wrong, if we defined [sovereignty] as a political community without a political superior?”
A LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY:
Consider the European Union. Whatever treaties existed extant would be subsumed into EU precedence. The EU — as it stands today, as wavering as it exists — is not backed by as immutable a document as the US Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton wrote:
“A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.”
His point was that if you do not have a national government you can’t expect to remain a nation.
Further, there are Spanish judges who want to arrest American politicians if they venture into Europe, in order to try them for war crimes. This is insanity.
It is not impossible for the United States to lose its sovereignty, if it purposely chooses not to protest or make a public refusal to various international demands.
To wit: EU administrators have already accepted that any kind of “treaty” is somehow superior to their own national constitutions. To the point where, when regulations are spit forth from the European Commission, they supercede statutes and constitutions.
But here’s the amazing point to note: the European Union does NOT have a “constitution” itself!
The EU claims political superiority over member states but declines to be responsible for their defense. As if “defense” is an issue that simply does not “factor.”
The “Kyoto Protocol” is another example. Had we signed on, it would have turned over massive amounts of decision-making from our country UP to “international authorities.” Authorities who couldn’t care less about our position, our history, our future. Mr Obama would love to re-negotiate another treaty along these lines.
As I wrote previously, the International Red Cross draws no lines. The US is on par with Yemen or Syria. The IRC already works against US soldiers.
In Europe, it doesn’t mean much to be French or British or Italian any more.
The Progressives and Leftists of this country would quite enjoy removing US sovereignty and upfitting, to a global authority, your individual rights to life, liberty, private property, speech, writing, responsibility.
If we willingly allow more of our national policy to be made at an international level, our government has not only less determination but less moral authority to determine what it is to be an American.
When everyone is “equal” and everything is “the same” then no one has freedom and everyone is subjugated.
BZ
BZ, you are an excellent writer, but you, and a few other bloggers are killing yourselves…
You write AWESOME pieces and then you call Obama by some made-up name…
You use Obaka, Ol’ Broad calls him D’Bama, y’all are killing your search engine power… Just sayin’…
TF: Okay, I admit, I’m a techno-idiot. What are you saying? That I won’t be referenced because I mis-spell his name? Is that it?
Because, if that’s the point, I am damned clueless.
BZ
Search engines look for NAMES in posts, Obaka isn’t his name, therefore, you get NO reference for a solid blast TO Obama… Also, see the posts on my blog, TAGGED WITH… Use tags…
Search engines LOVE Tags… It’s all about accuracy, and you can have the most wonderfully insightful, fact filled post ever written, if you call him OBAKA instead of OBAMA, you lose search engine reputation…
Think of it like this, if you Google your REAL name, but for some reason, you misspell part of it, Bluviating for example, Google asks, “Did you mean Bloviating”, you get a better search value for total correctness…
I think he’s saying that by using a pseudonym for Bozama, BZ, you are missing out on spinning your “hit count” like a “wheel of fortune”, and therefore you’re losing a ton of money you could be earning from all those advertisers on your sidebar.
Advertisers like…. uhh… waitaminute.
Oh.
(In your BEST Emily LaTella voice),
Nevermind!
(And I’m in the same boat. I have no interest in putting ads on my blog.)
Not talking about ads at all, I have no ads either, I am talking about rankings, and how to increase them, and BZ deserves some seriously higher rankings…
Titles and content, and their accuracy, are terribly important…
I’m going to have to go with TexasFred on this one BZ. The higher ranking you get the more people that are exposed to the truth.
Personally, I don’t write for the masses. It’s more of a relief valve to keep me from going postal on those that pretend to protect and serve our constitution.
But then, I don’t write with the kind of research that you do. Most of my stuff is off the cuff.
Good post, BZ.
TF & Greybeard:
Looks like I’ll have to rethink my posts. And, I must say, a resounding THANK YOU to you for pointing this out to me!
Thank you, gentlemen, for guiding me down the proper internet road!
BZ
BZ, I read your blog several times a day!
I consider you a friend and someone I would be in a “bunker” with if it comes to this.
Texas Fred is your com-patriot, and he is right.
As an old law officer, I hope to meet you one day, as we have a lot in common.
I am one of those old lawmen, that think and feel that our Constitution means a lot, and I have left body parts on the field of battle in the justification of these beliefs. aka Garberville marijuana helicopter raids in 1970, and the Willow Creek drug busts by the CAL BODD in the 70’s.
BZ, you are the voice of the true people that want to totally eliminate the criminal element.
I am concerned at this time, as who will be your replacement in the “chain of command”, when you retire and hand off the responsibility of this command.
I will back you up any time,, and this is not touted lightly.
TF-
Of course you’re right… on two counts.
Like GW, I write for myself and have never cared to attract large numbers to my blog. I’ve been satisfied with whatever traffic comes, reads, and comments. But others may not have the same attitude, and you’re right that BZ’s writing is educational and worthy of being read by a larger audience. I too stop by nearly every time I pop on the internet to see if there’s new stuff to read.
So BZ AND TF-
Thanks for the enlightenment.
Good point, Fred.
With the time and research BZ does, more people need to read his stuff, which makes search engines his friend.
So, my suggestion, BZ? Use Obama at least once or twice in your posts.
This is a terrific post.
cjh
BZ, change the OBAKA stuff, TexasFred is so right..More people should read this excellent piece and they won’t because it doesn’t get picked up.
Please change it…
It also sucks the power out of your piece by using names like that (though I understand why you do!)
Who knows BZ, Rush might even use your blog as part of his show because of the search results. Just a thought. Amazing post BZ.
Here is an excellent example of exactly what I mean about accuracy of a title…
D’Bama: Abysmal Failure
If you Google THAT title, you’ll get Ol’ Broads story as the top of THAT search…
That’s wonderful, if you call him D’Bama in world and national news… Otherwise, you just WASTED the time and effort to post… That story of her’s means DICK in search engine value and rankings…
Google, THE #1 search engine looks at that and says, “WTF? Are you stoopid?”
Yes, Google will misspell for those too challenged to post names correctly..
Excellent post BZ, and dead on as far as I can tell… The judges are in fact nibbling away at our freedoms one little piece at a time, and since none of us has the time, money, OR the expertise to fight these individual battles, I believe by the next generation, our country will be unrecognizable to us…
These idiots running our nation would be perfectly fine to have us take a backseat to Russia, China, OR any other 2 bit country.But they would be the first to scream about human rights or some enviro concern….I can’t stand the way they are twisting our nations history to suit them I can’t stand the way they are manipulating the Constitution. IF Nov comes and goes and Obamamao is still in office our nation will not survive. Our nation goes into the abyss after that.
BD is typical of where the nation is headed. You wrote an excellent piece that is open for dialog if you actually had a fact or two to point out…BD says you are stupid…TYPICAL LIBERPUKE…Can’t win the argument, call em names…You aren’t a racist yet though BZ, he must have been slipping…
BZ, ya need to turn on that troll filter, or you WILL lose your readership again…
TF: thanks for the suggestions, back to original name-spelling.
BZ
mrchuck: thank you very much for your kind words, sir. I don’t foresee stepping away from this blog for quite some time. It’ll be my escape and more in-depth hobby when I retire sometime next year or year after. Ideally, what I’d like to do is travel and personally cover more politics, events and national situations, in writing and with photography and video.
BZ
BZ, T-Fred is definitely right about search engines and how they index.
Brilliant article. I think you are on to something. Obama has been a transnationalist – probably always. His ties to the U.N. and their goals are frightening.
Placing courts, especially SCOTUS in power in a way we haven’t known before would certainly benefit those who want to law, except the laws they want!
He is set to have the opportunity to rig the court for the rest of my lifetime and the lifetimes of my children. If Congress is taken out of the equation, and we see them abdicating their solemn duties, obligations and privileges every day, then it makes room for the courts (and the Czars, of course).
It is obvious this article took a lot of time and thought. I always appreciate your work.
Hey Libs…. Lets have a little less of the blame Bush BS and start blaming Obama, it’s ALL his mess now.
You can’t blame Bush forever.
OMIF: hello, and thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment! Please return! You’ve clearly noticed that results somehow do not seem to be the responsibility of this administration, but of all others.
BZ
The goal is to transform the Constitution completely “under the radar” whilst America deals with day-to-day problems.
I would add to that the following: We have reached the point that the government is now the largest employer and also the lender of choice, the latter for college loans, specifically as one example.
With the government (federal, local, state) as the largest employer in America, the government can control its employees’ political activism. Think of the implications of this control!
I personally know a lot of people who will not say one word against BHO because they don’t want to face persecution on the job. Besides, when one is working toward retirement, one simply cannot afford to allow political principles to sink that retirement, right?
I do wonder how long the government retirement systems can survive with so many people depending on those funds. People typically draw out a lot more than they pay in, right?
AOW: I don’t mind people getting what they paid for when they signed on. Because, at that point, under those agreed-upon conditions, they had the option of working at Job A or Job B. They likely chose Job A because of specific conditions. That said, there MUST be a tiering effect put in place. When unions, for example, dispute or refuse to accept tiering, they’re undermining themselves and the entities paying them, public or private. And that obviously ensures a leap off the budget precipice.
BZ
A damned good piece, Mr. Z!
The intentional obfuscation of our Positive and Negative Liberty and Rights is one that the Transnational Progressivists have been trying to mix up since the beginning of the Progressive era.
I do not slur any office holder by their name, at least not often, but by saying what they are doing and describing it properly. I also distinguish between the individual in office and the office, itself. This confounds Leftists who try to say that ‘Bush violated our civil rights’ and do not recognize that Obama doing the same thing is the exact same ‘violation’… and they cannot understand why anyone, ever, would look at the powers of the office and ask – ‘is this a power imbued in the office of the President?’
By trying to turn the personal into the political, they use vehement personal attacks to stir up emotions and control you via those emotions. Yet the greatest of all control is self-control, and to anyone unable to distinguish between the office and the man, they are unable to use reason at the first instance, and wisdom at the second. By letting emotions spill forth in the ‘personal’ way in the ‘political’ realm, we destroy our understanding that there is a difference between man and the law he creates. If we are here to uphold the rule of law, then do so…because the other side is trying to uphold the rule of man, and that always ends in a bloody fashion with much tyranny and despotism involved.
A man may be an ideologue, a fool, a cretin, a nitwit, a twit… the office is far different and is our creation to ensure the proper use of our negative liberties in our self-defense as a people and a Nation. The man is temporary, if you are damned lucky and he is civilized and respects the rule of law. When the man sees himself AS the office, he has stepped beyond all bounds of reason and into the belief that tyranny is ‘good’ with him as tyrant.
That is where the ‘personal is the political’ gets you: a violent, bloody, nasty, uncivilized end. I am civilized and I refuse to do that, and will defend my righ to uphold that conception against all the barbarians who preach it. I control my emotions so as to control my heart, and my soul. I give those up to no man and no government. Being civilized isn’t about being nice or being sweet and kind: it is about doing what is necessary to uphold laws that protect us equally and without favor. There is a thumb on the scales of justice, and the time is coming for it to be chopped off. That will neither be personal nor political, but a civilized way to return the rule of blind law and due process. Soon the Left will be unable to thumb their noses at anyone, as they will be lacking thumbs.
BZ,
I don’t mind people getting what they paid for when they signed on.
Agreed, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.
But I’m saying this: if the majority of Americans are on government retirements, taxes have to go to the moon — for both retirees and all other workers. That economic future isn’t sustainable, and the likely outcome is the bankruptcy of the retirement system. What will elderly retirees do in such a case? They rely on that retirement!
At the moment, government jobs offer better benefits than most private industries (for the average worker, I mean). But in actual fact, government employees and their retirement funds are being paid by the taxpayers. Furthermore, private industry is the backbone of our economy — or used to be.
When the government becomes the primary employer, we have socialism. When government becomes the only employer, we have communism. Right now, government is the primary employer.
AJ: and THANK you sir for weighing in, and your kind words. And yes, civility should win the day. There are days, however, when I am truly tasked and sorely challenged.
AOW: point well taken, which is why the government needs to let business come back to the playing field — but this administration won’t do that, for fear of control loss.