I receive hard copies of National Review, The New Yorker, The Economist, ABA Journal, American Rifleman, and Bon Appetit. I find hard copies of cooking magazines to be essential to avoid grease-covered screens. I still find a lot of quality writing in the New Yorker and find The Economist is excellent for foreign news. Brian Garner suggested those two magazines, saying in order to write well, one should read well-written articles.

That's why it is so important to define who the enemy is. If they're working for AQ, the AUMF has declared them the enemy. But just becasue an act of violence is motivated by anti-american ideology does not automatically put you in that camp. If Congress wants to declare war on Islam so that anyone belonging to that group can be considered to have forfeited their due process rights, Congress can do so. The point is they haven't. Just allowing the executive to decide who gets due process and who doesn't with no imput from Congress is a break down of the balance of powers that lie at the root of the Constitution.

The conventional wisdom of the earlier thread was that a military tribunal would be inappropriate for someone not affiliated with a group identified by congress in the AUMF. Miranda rights are a completely different issue for which an exception exists for public safety as recognized by the Supreme Court in New York v. Quarles.

Section 2(a) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force states:

"[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..."

Last I checked we weren't at war with Chechnyan sleeper cells. The Constitution gives congress the sole power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action. Presidents have denied the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution, but it has never been ruled unconstitutional. Since the Power of Judicial Review lies with the Supreme Court (not with John Yoo) it's still illegal for the president to treat criminals as enemy combatants if congress has not designated them a target of military force.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Rand Paul has the best chance of appealing to young people and independents. If he keeps up his wacko-bird antics he's going to get a lot of anti-establishment appeal that would play perfectly against Clinton.

Rubio would also play well against Clinton with the young hispanic upstart vs. the privileged old white lady narrative.

Personally I think Rick Perry would be the best president but I don't think he can get elected.

The Republican party will never be cool if it tries to be cool. Cool people are comfortable with themselves. What the GOP can do is make the left seem square. This is best done through ridicule and condescension. The right should take every opportunity it can to mock the left, be it their leadership, their policy ideas, or their fashion sense. What are today's hipsters if not nerds who started making fun of jocks? The key to being cool is not to try to change yourself, that never works, but convincing enough people that you don't care what anybody thinks about you and pointing out the uncoolness in others.

What he's saying is that when you have a vast number of people who are not being represented in a free democracy you have an unbalanced situation that cannot endure. Its not that the dissenters should take control of the party, its that they inevitably will take control due to external pressures. The (largely meaningless) question that remains is: do you continue to call the oppositional party that emerges the Republican party, or has the name become so tainted that you call it something else? I see the piece as more prophetic than proscriptive. It will interesting to see how things play out in 2014 and beyond.

I think its more than a "failure to represent" their constituentcies. Codevilla flat out says they're against us. More than failed they have abandoned their constituents, undermined and betrayed them. The leadership in Washington doesn't even like us very much, let alone attempt to fight for our most profoundly held values.

 Asserting moral-intellectual superiority, chastising and intimidating rather than persuading opponents is by no means the least of the ruling class’ powers. “It’s the contempt, stupid!” But the Republican leadership has proved stupid enough to deal with the contempt as the Pharisee in the Temple dealt with sin: “I thank thee Lord that I am not like other Republicans…”

I've always been wary of populism, but I worry even more about being left to the mercy of Leviathan.

More thoughts on this article can be found on the member feed: http://ricochet.com/member-feed/An-Intellectual-Voice-for-the-Conservative-Insurgency

Sounds like a good way to fill the feed with clutter.

The looks on some of those kid's faces when confronted with the storm of abuse is priceless. Stossel comes off as defensive and pouty.  I think the mantra for all conservative public faces should be "Mock, Ridicule, Laugh it off."

The biggest threat to small government is weak families.

God bless Wyoming! From a conservative Coloradan perspective, things are looking pretty good north of the border despite the wind and pesky jackalopes.

So what about the defense hawks? Benko seems dismissive of the size of defense cuts that Panetta called "catostrophic". Is the plan to let the sequester go into effect with the rationale that the debt is the biggest threat to our national security? Or is it to use the sequester to bargan with the Dems on cuts, reducing its effect on the debt while preserving defense?

Lately I've taken up reading modern consevative legal theorists for a paper I'm writing, and have been most impressed with Hadley Arkes (natural law), James Stoner (common law), and Robert Bork (originalism). Robert Nagel is a national treasure.

My conversion to conservatism required a detour through libertarianism and occurred during my drunken college years. I have to say that the three writers that had the biggest impact on me at the time were Tom Wolfe, P. J. O'Rourke, and Hunter S. Thompson.