In a speech given on May 21 at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney said President Barack Obama and other officials have largely "mischaracterized" the Bush administration's approval of "enhanced" interrogation techniques. Cheney said: "The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do."
A Gallup Poll released on May 13 indicated that nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed — 64 percent — responded that it "doesn't matter" to them if the president appoints a woman to the Supreme Court to replaced retiring Justice David Souter.
The tremendous seismic activity reported throughout Virginia lately was not the result of an unpredicted earthquake, rather it was the reverberations that were caused by the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves after reading the recent article by Michael Anthony Lawrence, a professor of constitutional law at Michigan State University. In that article published May 11 in the Detroit Free Press, Professor Lawrence unashamedly invokes the sacred names of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in a most incredible and inexcusable manner. How so? In the mold of his hero, President Barack Obama, Professor Lawrence audaciously declares that Messrs. Madison and Hamilton would “find a lot to like about President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office.”
Following Montana’s lead, the Lone Star State has introduced a bill in the legislature challenging federal authority to regulate guns under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under the proposed legislation, firearms and ammunition produced in Texas for use in the state would be exempt from federal laws and regulation.
If one wants a nearly thorough education about the U.S. Constitution, it would be wise to examine the following: the notes from the Constitutional Convention, the public editorials written both for and against the proposed Constitution that followed, the state ratification debates, and the actual document itself. These all give one an almost comprehensive knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, although, as any law student will explain, modern constitutional law consists solely of Supreme Court cases mostly from the last 50-100 years. So why should someone bother wasting time on the above-mentioned items when they’re no longer relevant to our federal system of governance?