It Was Only A Matter Of Time....

Whether the predominant interest groups on the left would actively seek to defeat the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court was never a question of if but when. Ralph Neas answered that question Wednesday when he announced People for the American Way’s opposition to the Roberts nomination in a harsh condemnation of the judge and his likely role on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Neas’ bit of invective ("I didn’t think that anybody could be to the right of William Bradford Reynolds, Robert Bork, and Ted Olson, but Roberts managed it") should serve as a stern reminder to any conservative that the left, or the far left at least, has every intention of employing the same scorched-earth tactics that became infamous during the Bork and Thomas confirmation process, no matter how unfounded they are. Yes Judge Roberts’ ascension to the Supreme Court is all but guaranteed and no Democrats no longer have the numbers in the Senate to pull off the same character assassination that succeeded in Judge Bork’s nomination and nearly succeeded in Justice Thomas’. But what they can do, and probably will do, is denigrate Judge Robert’s integrity and character, further diminishing the integrity of a process that has already been diminished far too much in the past two decades. Conservatives and Republicans need to be prepared to refute such inflammatory tactics and keep the record straight. Mr. Neas and company shouldn’t be allowed to get away with crying wolf any more.

Hat Tip: Sean Higgins

The Iraqi Constitution

A draft constitution has been submitted to the Iraqi Parliament with a vote being postponed a few days in order to settle some remaining reservations on the part of Sunni factions involved in the process. Though some alterations may still be made there are a few aspects of the draft that are important and deserve mention.

First off, the draft constitution sets up a federalist system of government with a decentralized national government and a substantial degree of autonomy for the separate provinces and regions. Very important, for given Iraq’s diverse and pluralistic regions, and it’s tragic recent experience with centralized government, a federalist system will be a necessity in insuring the new Iraq’s survival and success.

Also included is a proper balance between the role of Islam and minority rights. Islam is "the religion of the state" and "a main source for legislation", an acknowledgment to be expected in a predominantly Islamic nation and entirely acceptable so long as the rights of religious minorities are guaranteed. They are: "This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees all religious rights of all persons in the freedom of belief and religious practice." As Paul Mirengoff has pointed out, the fact that Islam is "a main source for legislation" and not "the main source" is indicative of the actual role Islam will play in Iraq’s governance.

Most importantly, the draft institutionalizes all the hallmarks of a stable, peaceful, legitimate, and successful democracy. Those hallmarks, which distinguish a stable and peaceful democracy from the other forms of government, include religious freedom, sovereignty residing with the people, civil control of the military, judicial review, the peaceful transfer of power, etc. That the elected representatives of the Iraqi people included all of these in their draft constitution dismisses any notion that Iraq specifically, and the region as a whole, is ill-prepared or in-conducive to democracy.

Note: The document quoted in this piece is a rough translation provided by The Washington Post and sources close to the drafting process, according to the Post, have verified that it is an accurate representation of the actual draft.

Hat Tip: Paul Mirengoff, Michael Ledeen, The Washington Post

The Transfer Of Gaza

Israeli military posts and settlements are, as we speak, being dismantled and withdrawn from the Gaza Strip. The questions remaining are 1) should Israel be vacating Gaza in the first place? and 2) if so is this the right moment and situation to be doing so?

The answer to the first is probably yes. Gaza was originally and traditionally Palestinian territory and it would probably be prudent to return it to them.

The answer to question two however is no, this is neither the right moment in time nor, and maybe most importantly, the right situation to transfer Gaza to the Palestinians.

----------

As part of the roadmap to peace, Palestinian dismantling of the terrorist apparatus is a pre-requisite for receiving any territory from the Israelis and, eventually, an independent state. This has not happened. Either by a lack of power or a lack of will PA President Mahmoud Abbas has been able to achieve little else other than meaningless cease-fires that do nothing to achieve the necessary defeat of terror.

Yet for some unexplained reason the transfer of Gaza goes ahead as planned. As it stands now, Gaza is being transferred not to a pacified Palestinian society but to one as infested with terror as ever. Instead of land for peace, Israel is ceding land for nothing in return but the status quo. And what does this achieve? If the PA receives land for nothing than what impetus will they have to defeat the terrorist elements within their society? A pacified Palestinian society assuming control of Gaza is in everyone’s best interest, but unilateral concessions and adherence to the peace-process of this sort only insures that this won’t happen, for now a jubilant Hamas has another base in which to launch further terror against Israel.

If the process is to succeed than Israel, and for that matter the free world, must demand Palestinian reciprocity. The Palestinians will get their land, but only in return for the dismantling of the terrorist groups that currently thrive within their society. Failure to do so will only result in the continued murder of innocent Israelis and the continued misery of the Palestinian people.

You cannot reward terror and complacency, for when you do all you get in return is more of each.

Judge Roberts

A simple word of comfort to any liberal who might be terrified and a word of caution to any conservative who might be ecstatic at the news that John Roberts called abortion a "tragedy" during his time in the Reagan Administration....his personal views don’t matter. His brief tenure on the D.C. Court of Appeals has demonstrated that, if nothing else, he has the judicial integrity to keep his personal beliefs and prejudices out of the legal deliberative process. Judge Roberts is a jurist who will faithfully and impartially follow the law, whether that leads him in a direction which concur with his personal views or not.

If he truly does believe abortion is a "tragedy" then great, so do I. If he doesn’t that’s fine too. The one and only thing I care about is that he recognizes that his role on the federal judiciary is a limited one and that matters of policy creation and execution belong to the elected branches responsive and responsible to the American people. If he does, and of this I am confident, than his tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court will bring to that body what it too often lacks nowadays—judicial modesty.

Washington State '06 Senate Race

New polling numbers were released by Strategic Vision yesterday on the state of public opinion here in Washington State. In regards to the upcoming Senate race in ‘06, Sen. Maria Cantwell has a very soft 47% approval rating. Further, if the election were held today, Sen. Cantwell would defeat SAFECO CEO Mike McGavick, the only Republican to announce an interest in the race so far, 46-38%.

That the senator is ahead by only eight points against a virtual unknown at this early juncture, and is under fifty percent in both approval and in the horse-race numbers, should be of a concern to her. If McGavick does officially enter the race, and barring any significant primary challenge builds some name recognition and credibility with state voters, he will be able to put some pressure on the senator and her underwhelming first term record. Like Sen. Cantwell in 2000, McGavick is wealthy enough to personally fund his campaign as well.

None of this means that we should be writing Sen. Cantwell’s obituary quite yet though, for she is still an incumbent Democratic senator in a reliably left-of-center state. Resentment against the Democrats does exist over last year’s gubernatorial election, but I anticipate that being more of a problem for Governor Gregoire in ‘08 than Sen. Cantwell in ‘06. If I had to, I’d still put money on Sen. Cantwell winning reelection with around fifty percent of the vote. She is the undisputed favorite and it is going to take a heck of an effort by McGavick and state Republicans to unseat her.

Hat Tip: Stefan Sharkansky, Alexander K. McClure

Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

As I have made clear, and more importantly, as the constitution makes clear, the practice of abortion is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional. It is not mentioned, and thus, through the 10th Amendment, regulatory authority over it belongs to the states and the people, not the Federal Government.

Therefore I concur with the 8th Circuit’s ruling invalidating the federal partial-birth abortion ban, albeit for the exact opposite reason.

Faithful to Supreme Court precedent, the Circuit struck down the statute in question due to the absence of any health exception for the mother. Puzzling, for having thoroughly read through the constitution I have failed to find any health exception clause or amendment that would invalidate a federal or state statute prohibiting any form of abortion not containing said exception. Either the Supreme Court is handing down decisions based on a different version of the constitution (which they have taken upon themselves to write) or they are distorting the actual constitution ratified and amended by the people—– probably both.

The actual reason the federal partial-birth abortion ban is unconstitutional is simple— it exceeds congress’ regulatory authority. Article II, Section 8 of the constitution specifically enumerates congress’ powers, which include the power to assume debt, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, coin money, provide for an army and a national defense, establish rules for naturalization, etc. Clearly absent is any authorization or sanction of the powers exercised by congress with the partial-birth abortion ban.

Further, if it is unconstitutional for the congress or the federal government to invalidate state laws prohibiting abortion, which it is, than it must also be unconstitutional for the congress to introduce nationalized limits or prohibitions, which may or may not reflect the desires of an individual state, on the practice as well. There is no question that the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is a good law and the right thing to do. However the legal question the Court must answer is not whether the right call was made, but instead who gets to make the call. The answer to this is simple—each state and the people therein have the sole authority to make the call, not the congress or the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court is at all committed to the constitution than they will reaffirm the 8th Circuit’s judgment on these grounds.

Hat Tip: Terry Eastland

The Raich Test

It comes as no surprise that the defining issue in the upcoming confirmation fight will be abortion. Both the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life movements have been girding up for this moment for years, and the difference between support and opposition to Judge Roberts will depend almost entirely on his stance on abortion, or at least his perceived stance.

But should it be this way? Is abortion really the most important issue the court, and if confirmed, Judge Roberts will deal with? It’s important for sure, and the fact that the issue has been put out of reach of the democratic process for thirty years is largely responsible for all of the public acrimony that exists today.

However to define abortion as the biggest issue facing the court would be a stretch, and there are much larger issues, of which abortion is a part, which should be, and in my view are, of greater concern.

Most pertinent are Judge Robert’s views on the larger issues of federalism, enumerated powers, and the court’s role in limiting the exercise of federal power. What, for instance, is Judge Roberts’ Commerce Clause jurisprudence? Does he believe that it serves as a rubber stamp for expansive and intrusive federal regulation, or does he believe it serves as a strict prohibition on such activity?

To be more specific, would he have ruled in Gonzales v. Raich that the Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate activities neither interstate nor commercial, as long as such activity could conceivably affect interstate commerce, as the court did, or would he have sided with Justices Thomas, O’Connor, and Rehnquist and ruled that such interpretation leaves no limit on federal power?

To ask such questions during Judge Robert’s hearing would be inappropriate, and he will almost certainly refrain from answering. So to ascertain the answers we must refer to the judge’s record on the court of appeals, as slim as it may be. His dissent in Rancho Viejo v. Norton suggests that his Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and his views on federalism, more closely fall in line with the three dissenting justices in Raich. In his opinion Judge Roberts opined that congress had no right to order, through the Fish and Wildlife Services, that a property owner remove a fence on his property so as not to inhibit the movement of an endangered species of toad that resided on that property. "The hapless toad," he wrote, "for reasons of it’s own, lives it’s entire life in California", and thus falls outside of congress’ regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.

This indicates an important understanding of the limitations the Commerce Clause was intended to incur, an understanding that has also been lacking on the court for quite some time. Granted one dissent in one specific case is not much to go on, but it isn’t much of a stretch to assume that Judge Roberts will apply the same jurisprudence in future cases. If so, we can expect that his ascension to the court will bring about a federalist jurisprudence that will serve the court and the country well, and will at least help curb the tide of federalism’s court-subsidized demise.

Hat Tip: OpinionJournal

What Really Matters

In the days and weeks that passed between Justice O’Connor’s announced retirement and the president’s announcement of her successor speculation was justifiably rampant about just who the nominee would be. The relevant question throughout the whole process, in my view at least, was would the president nominate someone in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas, as he had previously indicated he would, or would he nominate a more results-oriented nominee such as the departing Justice O’Connor, thus avoiding a contentious confirmation fight in the Senate?

Instead, the question most commonly chewed on was whether the president was compelled to nominate a woman or a minority to replace the court’s first female justice. It got to the point where any reasonable person could have been forgiven for believing that the president was searching for someone to fill a diversity slot, not an open vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. The dialogue increasingly concerned itself more with identity politics than the more substantive issues it should have concerned itself with.

Now, to the president’s credit he selected the best person available for the job, and substance and merit carried the day, as it always should. He approached the vacancy looking for the person most capable, whose legal credentials, temperament, philosophy, and intellect were best suited for the nation’s highest court. Such an approach is the correct one, and it should be the model for filling any vacancy, Supreme Court or otherwise. Factors such as race, gender, religion, etc., are, for the most part, superficial and irrelevant.

One would also hope that we as a society have matured enough so that the implicit need to nominate someone simply for the purpose of creating an illusion of equality no longer exists. Selecting someone on the basis of race or gender doesn’t bring about equality, it only creates greater inequality, for it automatically results in the exclusion of someone else for the very same reason, leaving us right back where we started.

We all want equality, but there is a right way and a wrong way to achieve it. Equality is completely unattainable except through liberty, the liberty to compete with all others on the basis of your own personal merit and talents. Each individual must be regarded as just that, an individual, and not as some label. Until this standard is reached equality will simply be a dream which we vainly seek but are never able to attain.

Broad Public Support For Roe?

A widely asserted claim by the punditry recently has been that the American public overwhelmingly supports a woman’s right to receive an abortion and opposes any potential reversal of Roe v. Wade. This assertion is based, almost exclusively, on a recent poll taken by the Gallup Organization that has 65% of Americans favoring Roe’s preservation. However other recently released data from Rasmussen Reports, one of the best polling firms in existence, counters this assertion.

While a majority of Americans certainly oppose any complete and unequivocal ban on abortion, they also oppose it’s broad implementation. 52% say abortion is morally wrong most of the time and 53% believe it is too easy to receive one. Only 18% believe it is too hard. Furthermore, 47% believe that the reversal of Roe v. Wade would result in the states deciding the issue themselves, which another 47% of Americans prefer. Just 39% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court should set the rules governing abortion.

While these numbers indicate that only a plurality desire the effects Roe’s reversal would bring, they also refute the notion that Americans broadly support it’s preservation. If anything, the division that exists over abortion and the lack of any clear consensus emphasize the need to return sovereignty over the issue to the states and the people, who can decide for themselves whether the practice is right or not.

The Nominee

The president officially nominated Judge John Roberts Jr. of the D.C. Court of Appeals to be the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court tonight. Though other candidates such as J. Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza, and Janice Rodgers Brown were preferable, Judge Roberts is an excellent choice and there is little doubt that he will markedly improve the quality of the high court. He has a superb, nay brilliant, legal mind and he comes with over twenty years of distinguished public service. Every bit of evidence available suggests that he is a strong "textualist", or someone who believes that a text should be given the meaning it had when it was adopted by the American people. Statements by the punditry that he more closely resembles his former boss Chief Justice Rehnquist than Justices Thomas and Scalia are really irrelevant, for the differences in their jurisprudential philosophies are for the most negligible. As long as his jurisprudence falls in line with those three he has my unreserved support.

UPDATE (11:54 P.M. 7/20/05): Amen.

UPDATE (1:25 A.M. 7/28/05): This guy's for real.

Defeating The Defeatist Mentality

America has never lost a war, and the only time we have been defeated is when we have defeated ourselves, by either losing the will to finish what we started or by simply retreating in the face of adversity. Our enemies in our current war know this, and on this fact their entire strategy in defeating the United States is predicated. Every bomb that explodes in the streets of Baghdad, or in the train tunnels of London for that matter, is targeted not at those that bomb kills or injures, but at the observing public back home, who justifiably cringe every time they view the carnage it inflicts on the nightly news. Al-Qaeda’s only hope of defeating us rests in the prospect that the American people will, after seeing too many of these pictures, lose the will to carry on. For the United States to be defeated the American public will have to conclude that the price simply isn’t worth paying, that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.

In this the terrorists are having some minor success, for already we are hearing from some circles that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists than had previously existed, and that the U.S. occupation has become a rallying cry for indoctrinated young Muslims who are swelling the ranks of al-Qaeda. These people believe that as a result of our presence in Iraq we are less secure than we were before, that we are more vulnerable to terrorist attack. Some of the more extreme elements even believe we should simply cut our losses and leave Iraq right away.

However to retreat from the world and the Middle East in defeat would be to fall into the same trap all of us willingly rested in before 9/11. We in the free world invite attack not when we are strong and active, but when we are, or at least are perceived to be, weak and dormant. We weren’t in Iraq or Afghanistan when our embassies in Africa were bombed, or when a boat full of explosives hit the Cole, or when planes were flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To fall prey to the belief that our actions are the culprit for terrorist acts perpetrated against us is to hand the terrorists the very victory they have been seeking and expecting.

Our main task then becomes not so much defeating the Zarqawi network within Iraq, but defeating the defeatist mentality that Zarqawi and company hope to foster here at home. What our leaders need to do, and specifically what our president needs to do, is come before the American people on a regular basis and reassure the people that what we are doing in the Middle East is right, and that winning in Afghanistan and Iraq is the only long-term solution to ending the type of terror that plagued us in London and New York, and that strikes in Iraq on an almost daily basis.

America and the free world will win this war, and we will defeat Islamic terrorism just as we defeated Communism, Nazism, and Fascism. The only way we can possibly be defeated is if we stop believing in our moral standing and purpose in this endeavor. As Ronald Reagan once said, "no arsenal, or no weapon, in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have." With that will and moral courage there is no one or no thing that can defeat us, without it we become as vulnerable as we were pre 9/11. Our enemies know this, so must we.

Why Roe Should Be Overturned

In the span of it’s existence the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down thousands and thousands of decisions, ranging both in issue and impact. However only a handful of cases have achieved lasting historical impact and defined and influenced the generation in which they were handed down.

Marbury v. Madison stands as the Marshall Court’s most infamous decision, and it was emblematic of that court’s significance in defining the role of the judiciary and the national government in our republic’s infancy. Dred Scott v. Sanford struck down the Missouri Compromise and subsequently the tenuous cease-fire that existed over the issue of slavery, paving the way for the Civil War and slavery’s abolition. Plessy v. Ferguson was instrumental in defining the new order following the Civil War and reconstruction by introducing the age of de jure segregation, an age which mercifully ended with the court’s ruling a generation later in Brown v. Board of Education. And last but not least, the court decision that has largely defined (and divided) this generation was the court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, which set off a thirty year debate over the issue of abortion that continues to this day.

Personally I believe abortion is a detestable practice that should be limited to only cases of rape, incest, and necessity to the mother’s heath. Abortion takes the gift of life from those it destroys and it robs society and future generations of the unique gifts and talents that each human life possesses. It’s negative effect isn’t limited to the unborn either, for the decision to end the life of their children often afflicts the mother throughout her life.

However none of this carries any relevance in regards to the legal questions involved in Roe v. Wade and ultimately why the case should be overturned. In it’s decision, the court followed the precedent it had set in Griswold v. Connecticut by ruling that although there is no explicit right to privacy written in the constitution, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments constitute a "penumbra" of privacy rights that guarantees the right to receive an abortion. Such reasoning is disturbing, for when issuing a decision the Supreme Court should always follow the text of the constitution and what the framers intended it to mean. I very much doubt that when ratifying the above amendments the framers intended to create a "penumbra" guaranteeing the right to privacy.

Instead, when the framers saw an absolute right to privacy they clearly enumerated that right in the constitution: the right to freely practice religion in the First Amendment, the right to dominion over one’s home in the Third Amendment, and the right to resist intermittent and unreasonable government searches and seizures of one’s personal property in the Fourth Amendment. There are other examples as well, but arguing that these clearly enumerated rights of privacy added together insure a broader right to privacy that includes the universal right to receive an abortion is at best dubious.

Seemingly lost on the court was the clear guidance the framers left future generations in regards to such an issue, for the Tenth Amendment states that all powers not given to the national government, or prohibited to the states, belong to the states, or the people. In essence, when the constitution is silent on who power or jurisdiction belongs to it automatically belongs to the states or the people by default. If anyone doubts this they simply need to refer to the words of the constitution’s father, James Madison, who in Federalist No. 45 stated that the powers of the states are "numerous and indefinite", and include "all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs; concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." This stands in stark contrast to the powers of the national government, whose powers are "few and defined", and which extend mainly to "external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce".

Nowhere in the constitution is the power to regulate abortion given to the national government, and nowhere in it is it denied to the states. Therefore, the court’s decision, which disregarded and overturned numerous state statutes, was in error and the court’s judgement in Roe v. Wade should be reversed. Abortion is a state issue and the power to decide it’s legality belongs to the states and the sovereign people, not an oligarchy of nine.

SCOTUS Rumors

If the chatter over Chief Justice Rehnquist retiring today is true (some say it is not), than we will have two vacancies on the high court for the first time in over thirty years and the beginning of what is going to be a very interesting summer. Two openings as opposed to one will only further cement the Supreme Court and the Federal Judiciary as the major issue leading up to the '06 mid-terms, at least initially, which will favor Republican candidates in red states and put Democrats having to defend seats in those states, such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, in a very uncomfortable position.

UPDATE (4:22 P.M. 7/8/05): It's pretty clear that the chief justice will not be retiring today, but consensus has moved to him retiring within the next couple of days, possibly Monday.

We Stand With You

As Americans we extend our deepest condolences to the people of Great Britain on this tragic day and will continue to stand by those who have so faithfully and honorably stood by us.

Happy Fourth Of July

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH

The Clinton-Hatch Allusion

Over the last few weeks we have heard many high-profile Democrats imploring the president to consult with members of both parties within the Senate before selecting a nominee to the Supreme Court . They have argued that consultation is the key towards selecting someone who can gain widespread approval and a smooth confirmation process. As evidence of this, they point to the two Supreme Court vacancies that opened up under President Clinton and the amicable consultation process that existed between him and Sen. Orrin Hatch, then the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

However I get the sense that the Democrats who are alluding to these consultations don’t exactly remember how they took place, for they were successful not in the fact that a consensus nominee was agreed to, but because Sen. Hatch understood that a president is entitled to considerable personal deference in selecting a nominee. Sen. Hatch counseled President Clinton on the logistics of the confirmation process, not what judicial philosophy his nominee should hold. In fact, Sen. Hatch recommended two judges who would go on to be President Clinton’s two nominees, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and two of the court’s most liberal justices. I’m sure President Bush would welcome a similar sense of cooperation as well, but no reasonable person expects Sen. Leahy or Kennedy to afford President Bush the same deference that Sen. Hatch afforded President Clinton.

In contrast, as their statements have already indicated, the Democrats seek to influence what type of judicial philosophy the next nominee will hold. In essence they want a veto. If the president’s nominee isn’t a liberal, results-oriented jurist similar to President Clinton’s two nominees than the Democrats are going to inevitably claim they were never consulted or heard. The president should, and already has, opened up a dialogue with Democratic leaders, but those who expect that dialogue to result in any sense of cooperation or bipartisanship are setting themselves up for disappointment.

Hat Tip: Ed Whelan, Paul Mirengoff

Justice O'Conner Retires

Justice Sandra Day O'Conner submitted her resignation to President Bush this morning and thus ended a twenty-four year stay on the nation's highest court. Let me first congratulate her on her accomplishments during that period and thank her for her service to her country. I and the rest of the nation wish her the very best in her retirement and continued good health for many years to come.

Now to the business at hand, which is finding and confirming her replacement. As my opinions on recent court decisions have shown, I am growing increasingly concerned with the court's troubling disregard for the words and meaning of the constitution. In recent cases they have ruled that the Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate activities that are neither commercial nor interstate, that the Takings Clause allows local governments to seize private property not only for public use, but for public "purpose" as well, and that one ten commandment display in Texas doesn't violate the Establishment Clause while a similar one in Kentucky does. On what constitutional grounds these rulings are based on is unclear to me and many others, conservative and liberal alike.

Frankly it's time to reintroduce the constitution to the Supreme Court, which means sending justices to the court who, when making a ruling, will be guided by the word and intent of the constitution, and not exaggerate those words to mean something completely irreconcilable to it. There are many fine candidates out there who will meet this standard, and the president should have no problem finding a qualified nominee. Hopefully that nominee will receive a fair hearing and up or down vote on the Senate floor, as well as a civil and honest debate. As the president said this morning, that's what the nominee and this country deserve.

UPDATE (9:46 P.M. 7/3/05): The case for a constitutionalist nominee.

In Support Of CAFTA

As all free-trade measures seem to do, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) has met it’s fair share of resistance and opposition in congress. Protectionists argue that the pact will result in more losses in certain agricultural industries here in America, specifically sugar, and greater exploitation of labor in Central American countries. They also argue that CAFTA will bring about a greater trade deficit here at home, and most importantly, will result in more American jobs being outsourced to other countries. All this borders on hysteria, for as history and our current prosperity have shown, free trade is the surest way to grow the economy.

The passage of CAFTA will immediately open up newer markets for American goods, and that infusion will help grow the Central American economies, which will in turn create even greater demand for American products. Furthermore, any jobs that might be lost as a result of freer trade with Central America have already been lost, for 80% of goods from that region arrive here duty free anyway. CAFTA will simply add some reciprocity to the trade situation.

CAFTA’s benefits won’t be simply economic either, for it will provide an invaluable boost to the political situation in that region of the world as well. Increased economic growth in Central America is the most effective means available in strengthening democracy’s hand in that region. To quote Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, "[n]othing is a more secure anchor for democracy than citizens who are employed and building better lives for their families."

CAFTA enhances our economy as well as our geopolitical interests. It will open up new markets for American business and commerce and it will help improve the neighborhood in which we live. The Senate has already approved the pact, it is now time for the House to step up and do the right thing and approve it as well.

Hat Tip: Daniella Markheim, Robert B. Zoellick

UPDATE ( 10:30 P.M. 7/27/05): CAFTA has passed the House 217-215.

The President's Speech

The president’s speech on Iraq didn’t provide any new strategy or plan, nor any announcement of greater troop levels or shift in administration attitude. It didn’t have to. What the president needed to accomplish last night, and what has been so sorely lacking in recent months, is some context and perspective. All Americans have seen recently, whether it be in their newspaper or on the nightly news, are headlines and images of another car bomb going off and the deaths of more American soldiers and innocent Iraqis. All they’ve heard is hysterical rants from their leaders in congress, whether it be Teddy Kennedy labeling Iraq a "quagmire" and "George Bush’s Vietnam", or Chuck Hagel going so far as to say we are losing there.

What they haven’t seen or heard is what else is going on in Iraq, of all the political and military developments in that country that are making the jihadists so barbarically cruel and desperate. They haven’t heard about the progress that coalition forces are making in training Iraqi defense units, or the progress American forces are making in rounding up and arresting or killing members of Zarqawi’s network. All they have heard is an over emphasization of the terrorist attacks and scarcely a word about why we are over there in the first place and why Americans are sacrificing their time, money, talents, and lives there.

That is exactly what Americans needed to hear from the president last night, the full context of what’s going on there and why we are doing what we are doing. And to the president’s credit, that’s exactly what they did hear.

Goodbye Shelby Foote

Since fifth grade one of my great interests has been American history, especially the American Civil War. I have always been transfixed by that period, one of our nation's most trying and defining times, and better understanding the Civil War has given me an added perspective and context when looking at contemporary issues that would have been previously absent. Though there have been many great works written on the Civil War, the best I have come across has been the Civil War trilogy by Shelby Foote. His excellent use of historical narrative and astonishing depth of knowledge (if the reader didn't know better they'd think Mr. Foote had actually been there) have given me great pleasure and inspiration, and his works have encouraged me to learn all I can on the subject.

It is because of this and other reasons that I looked upon the news of his death today with great sadness. In the coming months and years I look forward to finishing up his Civil War epic and further enjoying his contribution to the Ken Burns Civil War series. Though Mr. Foote is no longer with us, his contribution to Civil War scholarship will continue for many years to come.

Hat Tip: Polipundit