Wow...another post.

I didn't have to go out on patrol today...yay! So it gives me more time to post.

I've been trying to keep up with the news, I was able to watch "The Factor" today with some jerk who wrote a book about his time as a sniper and his 60 kills. What sane person glorifies the fact that he's killed 60 people. I think he's just a glory hound, and an embarrassment.

Sane normal people do not revel in the fact that they've had to kill somebody, even in an armed conflict.

Another thing that is bothering me is this whole filibuster issue. Exactly where in the constitution does it say that a group of Senators may choose to use a filibuster in order to keep the rest of the Senate from voting?

From what I remember of the constitution (too lazy to look it up right now), the Senate has to advise the President and consent to Presidential nominee. Which they can't do if there is a filibuster, which leads me to believe that the whole process of filibustering is against the constitution.

Before any liberals speak up...Yes, I know that the Republicans have done the same thing, and it was unconstitutional for them as well. The ability to do such a thing needs to go away totally.

I mean think about it, when the minority party uses the filibuster to stop a vote, they are denying your right to self government. I mean, you did vote for the Senators to make these kind of decisions didn't you?

Anyway...the whole reason that the filibuster debate has come to a head recently is that the Liberals are concerned the these Conservative Justices will overturn a lot of their, "From the bench" legislation. That, to me, is what needs to be addressed.

Again, I know both sides do it and it needs to stop.

Congress has the constitutional duty to impeach and regulate the powers of the courts. They haven't been doing that, and as a result these Judges feel it is completely fine to rule on matters that they have no right to rule on.

Let me use Abortion as an example. I'm not going to debate the rights or wrongs of Abortion, just the Roe v. Wade decision.

The Supreme Court said that the issue was the right to privacy. So how exactly is Abortion constitutionally guaranteed based on this ruling? The constitution addresses the right to privacy, and yes...everyone has a right to keep their medical records/problems/decisions a private matter. How does that translate into the court being able to basically pass a law saying the medical procedure of Aborting a fetus as legal?

The problem is, that while we do have a right to privacy, we do not have the right to do anything we want. The government can still regulate what medical procedures are legal or illegal, same as medications(through the FDA), same as what level of qualifications someone must have to be considered a Doctor (licences to practice). By we the people electing our legislature, we pass the laws we want through them and because of that it is up to us whether we want Abortion to be legal or illegal, not up to the courts.

The constitution also states, that if something is not listed within it, the Congress has a right to pass laws regarding it. If congress doesn't do that, the right goes to the states.

I haven't read a constitution in a few months, but I don't recall there being any mention of a right to an abortion, or a right to any medical procedure at all. Which means it is within congress's power to regulate, and if they don't then it is within the state's power to do so.

As you can see, it the Supreme Court went well beyond it's constitutional mandate when it made abortion legal. Since that time, many of the courts have been doing this in a number of different cases regarding a number of different issues.

It's time for it to stop, courts are supposed to interpret laws, not make them. That is Congress's job description.