Written by M. Harrison | 13 June 2008

The decision was 5-4, and it quite riled the dissenting justices. Demonstrating their typical originalist belief that ancient legal doctrines can never adapt to new circumstances, both Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts filed cantankerous dissenting opinions.

Both justices felt the foreign extension of the writ of habeas was unnecessary because a) it never had been done before and b) Congress, in its infinite wisdom, enacted the Detainee Treatment Act that was supposed to do the same thing for those unfortunate souls in Gitmo.

Even though the Detainee Treatment Act explicitly denied the application of habeas to Gitmo detainees, the dissenters thought it was good enough because it provided perfunctory oversight procedures as a putative substitute. According to Justice Roberts, since Congress is elected by people, Congress tried to give some review to Gitmo proceedings, and Congress passed the DTA with the noble intentions of keeping America safe, any judicial interference with the DTA is really the denial of the will of the people. It was a nice try for political theatre, but ill-reasoned as a matter of Constitutional law.

Written by Joe Holmes | 11 June 2008

The Democrats and their desire to tax all “unreasonable” profits

By Joe Holmes

Everybody has their panties in a bunch about gas price. Sure, it kills me that it costs 45 bucks to fill up my Miata. But does that mean I want my Democratic friends to get in the way of private markets and impose excessive profit taxes on the five largest American oil companies?

51 Senators (out of 94 voting)…a majority…voted to impose these excess profit taxes on the five largest oil companies. Now practically, the Republics were able to filibuster, thereby blocking the bill from passing. But the point remains the same…the majority of the nation’s most powerful legislature believes that it is the government’s place to butt into the private oil market, take excess profit taxes from only the five largest companies, and redistribute these into the big pot that is our tax pool. Besides what the hell does “unreasonable” mean…who is defining this ambiguous term? The people trying to extract money from these private corporations?

The Democrats are quick to attack the oil companies, like they are all too quick to attack private markets in general; they fail to realize that it is not really the companies’ fault. Chevron, Mobile, Conoco…they’re not the ones bleeding the American people. No, it is the collusive cartel known as OPEC that is really putting the screws to all of us. They are tweaking oil supplies and artificially limiting the amount of oil we have access to, thereby pushing the price of oil through the roof. Oil companies are coming along for the ride, but they aren’t the ones driving this uncontrollable train.

The real solution to this crisis is through the market. If Democrats finally recognized that higher oil prices have led the majority of citizens to support drilling in America…in coastlands and in Alaska, then maybe they would help increase the supply of oil. If it costs $70 a barrel to extract oil in America…the corrupt oil countries of the Middle East and Latin America, will soon recognize that they can’t put it to us any more. At $130-$140 a barrel, any increase in supply will drive fear in the hearts of OPEC countries. Trust me, China and India…they aren’t worried about drilling in the secluded, barren parts of their country.

Written by Matt Fay | 09 June 2008

Profit Making Peacekeeping?

One good use for private military companies

By: Matt Fay

Left wing politicians and pundits often tag right wing republicans with the label “warmonger” – sometimes rightfully so. But what these left wingers often forget is that they, themselves, can be just as desirous of military action as their ideological opposites. Typically, when right-wingers call for military action it is usually claimed to be in the name of national security. In the past, when left-wingers desire military action it has been called “humanitarian interventionism.”

One case in point would be the recent situation in Myanmar (Burma). The cyclone that devastated that country, with a death toll closing in on a hundred thousand, has inspired an outpouring of humanitarian support from nations, international organizations, private charities, and individuals. Unfortunately, the brutal and secretive military junta that runs that country has decided to turn away the overwhelming majority of outside aid – exasperating an already disastrous situation.

Written by Matt Fay | 05 June 2008

Written by Dr. Troy Camplin | 03 June 2008