Comments Allen Forkum:

In a June 27 Dept. of Defense press service article, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was questioned about a "guerrilla war" in Iraq and answered by saying, "I don't know that I would use the word." We're not sure why there is a reluctance use the "guerrilla" label on the remnants of Saddam sympathizers (or "dead-enders" as Rumsfeld aptly dubbed them), but it was the most accurate label we could fit on a scorpion. Also in the article, Rumsfeld referred to efforts to recruit a "de-Baathicized" Iraqi army, which was good to hear; Iraq should be de-Baathicized the way Germany was de-Nazified.

In refusing to rule on the Nike case last week, the Supreme Court struck a heavy blow against freedom of speech.

The case involved Nike's attempts, in letters to editors and to university administrators, to counter charges that their overseas workers are abused. A critic, claiming that Nike's claims were false advertising, filed suit.

But Nike's letters deserve first-amendment protection. They were *not* advertisements--they addressed only the question of working conditions in its factories, saying nothing about its products. If such letters can be ruled a form of advertising, then anything said by any corporation about any aspect of its operations may expose it to crippling false-advertising lawsuits. Meanwhile the critics of corporations, whose speech is protected, can invent outright lies with no penalty.

By refusing to rule on this blatant violation of free speech, the Court officially declared open season on business.

Contrary to Justices Thomas and Scalia--and to your editorial ["Sex and the Scotus," 6/27/2003]--the Constitution does require the Supreme Court to strike down Texas' antisodomy law. The Ninth Amendment clearly states that the mere fact that a right is not enumerated in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage it. {In other words, the Constitution envisions that the Federal Government shall have no powers but those granted in that document--everything not specifically authorized to the government is forbidden.} The "privileges and immunities" that citizens thereby enjoy are equally protected from infringement by state governments according to the Fourteenth Amendment, as envisioned by those who framed and ratified it.  The Constitution was enacted, not to permit democratic majorities to enact their whims, but to restrict the power of government regardless of anyone's will. Justice{Stanley}Matthews put this well:

"{Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude. And}the limitations imposed by our constitutional law {upon the action of the governments, both state and national,} are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions. The enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device of self-governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government."

The Grace Community Church in the City of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, advertises an interesting entertainment kiosk on its website [PDF] for their Canada Day (July 1st) celebrations. Celebrants will be able to exhibit their uniquely Canadian tolerance of other cultures, such as Saddam's Iraq, by paying two Canadian dollars to "Dunk an American." Such is the state of mind here that this is not seen as contradictory or as politically incorrect. Rest assured that "Dunk a Muslim" or "Dunk a Baathist" (puns can be accidents) would cause screams of outrage.

In addition to Canadian businesses, the celebration is sponsored by Domino's Pizza and ReMax Realty --American corporations.

Related: Why I Won't Celebrate Canada Day This July

If you want to know whether conservatives deserve to be considered defenders of liberty, consider Justice Scalia's opinion dissenting from the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Texas's ridiculous and unconstitutional anti-sodomy law.

Justice Scalia warned that "this [decision] effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation": including laws against adultery, "fornication," and masturbation. So it would, and good riddance. Conduct that violates no one's rights is a matter for each individual's choice, not for the state's coercive power. What else can the individual's rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean?

The same Justice Scalia, with other conservatives, earlier this week assailed the affirmative-action decision as condoning illegitimate social engineering. Their view was correct, but their motives were hypocritical. Once a man has attempted to seize the power of the state to impose his view of the good life, he can expect nothing except for others to return the favor.

From Cox and Forkum: