Today, September 24, 2005, my wife of 41 years was honored as "Homemaker of the Year" at Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum meeting in St. Louis.

Joined by her three daughters, Amanda, Jennifer, and Alexandra, Peggy spoke eloquently and ably represented the Phillips family.

Here is a summary bio:

Peggy Phillips is the third of four daughters born to Dr. and Mrs. Walter O. Blanchard of Newton and Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Dr. Blanchard, born to a low-income family in Somerville, Massachusetts, was awarded full scholarships to Harvard College and Harvard Medical School from each of which he graduated magna cum laude.

Peggy’s Dad was an active foe of socialized medicine and conveyed to Peggy a passionate streak of political and moral conservatism.

Dr. Blanchard was nationally recognized for his leadership in efforts to assist the handicapped and as founder of an organization to help persons afflicted with epilepsy.

While in private practice, where he served patients at his home office, and as a teacher at Harvard Medical School, Chief of Medicine at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and finally as Chief of Medicine at the Raytheon Corporation, Dr. Blanchard was universally respected for his integrity and his indifference to material benefits.

While a student at Newton College of the Sacred Heart, Peggy organized and led a very active Young Republican Club.

In her senior year, while attending a speech by Congressman Walter Judd at a statewide meeting of the Massachusetts Caucus of Young Republican Clubs, Peggy met Howard Phillips, a Harvard Junior, who sought her support for his candidacy to become Massachusetts College YR Chairman.

When Peggy delivered to Howard the unanimous support of her Newton College delegation, she was elected to be his Co-Chairman, and, over the next few years, Howard and Peggy worked together organizing 39 college YR clubs, building what many believed to be the strongest political organization in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with more than 300 volunteers who turned out regularly on weekends to help score uphill victories for GOP candidates in districts many of which were overwhelmingly Democratic.

Peggy and Howard also worked together in battling the Left-wing United States National Student Association and helping build New England chapters of Young Americans for Freedom.

They were married in 1964, shortly after Howard, at age 23, was elected Chairman of the Boston Republican Party.

Their first child, Douglas, was born in 1965. A graduate of the College of William and Mary in Virginia and George Mason Law School, where he studied Constitutional law, Doug and his wife, Beall, who led the pro-life group at Doug’s college, now live in San Antonio, Texas with their seven children. They work together on a variety of projects, including Doug’s company, Vision Forum, and his charitable organization, Vision Forum Ministries. Doug is heavily involved with the home school movement, the Witherspoon School of Law and Public Policy, the Institute for Creation Research, the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, the annual Faith and Freedom Tour, and much more.

In 1966, after moving to the Washington, D.C. area, where Howard was a top assistant to GOP National Chairman Ray Bliss and helped staff the National Republican Coordinating Committee, Peggy gave birth to Amanda, who lives with her husband, Brian, and their four children in Purcellville, Virginia in a home which Brian personally designed and constructed. Brian and Amanda met at Grove City College where they were classmates.

In 1968, while Howard was managing the successful U.S. Senate campaign of Pennsylvania Congressman Dick Schweiker, their son, Brad, was born. Brad and his wife, Angel, and their four children now live in Rappahannock County, Virginia, to which Brad and his entire family have recently returned from a two-month mission to Africa.

As Founder and President of the Persecution Project Foundation, Brad has helped Christians in southern Sudan with radios, schools, hospitals, orphanages, and strategic support for the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), led by his close friend, Dr. John Garang, who was assassinated just a few days after having been installed as Vice President of the Sudan and shortly after meeting with Brad and his family at SPLA headquarters in southern Sudan.

Brad’s organization has delivered many tons of food and medical supplies to the Christian victims of the Marxist-Islamist Sudanese government based in Khartoum.

In 1974, just after Howard was finishing his service as Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, where he strove to close down Lyndon Johnson’s "Great Society", and just weeks before the launch of The Conservative Caucus, Peggy gave birth to Jennifer, now a graduate of Hillsdale College, who lives and works in New York City while pursuing an acting career for which she prepared in college and at various venues in the Washington, D.C. area, including the Washington Shakespeare Company.

In 1978, while Howard was leading the national campaign against the surrender of the U.S. Zone and Canal at Panama, Peggy gave birth to Alexandra, who has graduated from the Eastman School of Music in New York and is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. Alexandra has already distinguished herself as a soprano with the Baltimore Opera Company, the Knoxville Opera, and the Shaker Mountain Opera Company in the Berkshires. Alexandra has even had the opportunity to sing the national anthem at a major league baseball game.

Both Alexandra and Jenny are fans of Gilbert and Sullivan and have acted in some of their operettas.

Peggy’s youngest son, Samuel Joshua Phillips, was born in 1986. He benefited from 12 years of home schooling, during which he organized the Patrick Henry Oratorical Society, acted in the film, "Gods and Generals", and was named the Outstanding Athlete for leadership and sportsmanship in his hometown Babe Ruth League. Sam also worked with his Dad in organizing a geostrategic tour of the Far East in which he helped arrange events in Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, and Taiwan, featuring presentations by some 45 diplomats, military leaders, public officials, geo-strategists, and Christian activists.

Sam, who was elected Class President shortly after arriving at Christendom College, is now in his sophomore year, following an eventful summer which included ten days in Israel. He previously took part in a study tour in Italy.

During 41 years of marriage, Peggy has been a faithful wife, mother, and grandmother, providing encouragement and support to every member of her family.

Eleven members of the U.S. House of Representatives courageously voted against President Bush’s $52 billion plus supplementary appropriation to deal with the problems arising from Hurricane Katrina.

The eleven Constitutional heroes were: Joe Barton (Texas), Jeff Flake (Arizona), Virginia Foxx (North Carolina), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), John Hostettler (Indiana), Steve King (Iowa), C. L. Otter (Idaho), Ron Paul (Texas), James Sensenbrenner (Wisconsin), Thomas Tancredo (Colorado), and Lynn Westmoreland (Georgia).

I sent each of them the following letter:

Dear Congressman: On behalf of The Conservative Caucus, please accept my congratulations and appreciation for your courageous vote against the $52 billion New Orleans funding package proposed by President Bush. You did what was right, and that you did so reflects credit on your discernment and integrity.

Tom Deweese of the American Policy Center has an exciting new project, Freedom21.com, which he explains in the following manner:

How Freedom21.com Operates

1. Freedom21.com is a service of Freedom21 Communications (L.L.C.), owned and operated by Tom and Carolyn DeWeese

2. Freedom21.com is a secure site, with the exception of the opening page. This page is left unsecured because to do otherwise would inhibit access. In addition, the first page is simply an advertising page and no personal information is requested or stored.

3. Subscription payments to Freedom21.com are primarily offered through online, recurring credit card debits. Accepted credit cards are Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover. Checking account bank cards may be used, only if they contain the Visa or MasterCard logos. Bankcards not authorized by Visa or MasterCard will not be accepted. Freedom21.com cannot provide monthly billing statements. In case a member decides to cancel their subscription, the paid monthly fee is not refundable. Service will be provided for the full month and cancellation will go into effect starting with the next calendar month after cancellation. Partial months will not be prorated. This policy will also cover those who pay memberships a year in advance. Refunds will be issued based on the number of months remaining in the subscription at the time of cancellation, beginning with the next calendar month.

4. Checks may be accepted for subscriptions under the following conditions. First, the check must be for a full year’s subscription in the amount of $75. The check must be made payable to Freedom21 Communications and mailed to 50A South Third Street, Suite 1,Warrenton, VA 20186. Only after the check is received and deposited can the membership sign up process begin. Freedom 21 Communications will need to contact you for that purpose, so you must provide contact information with the check. All cancellation and refund policies listed above apply.

5. Freedom21.com takes very seriously, the privacy and security of its members. Personal information of members on this site will not be exchanged with anyone for any purpose. Our staff does not have access to your personal credit card account numbers. There are no secret back doors written into our software. The only information from this site that will ever be provided to an agency or branch of the government (at any level) will be through legal subpoena. In the event of such an occurrence, Freedom 21.com will take every step possible to notify its members of that fact, unless restrained by legal order.

6. One of the main purposes for the establishment of Freedom21.com is to help provide financial support to Freedom organizations, Internet news sites, radio programs and publications. If your organization would like to be considered as a participating organization it will be necessary to provide Freedom21.com with your organization’s name, website information (for our links page) contact information (including address) and a taxpayer ID number or Social Security # of an official in the organization. That information is required because the $2 per subscriber, per month going to Freedom21.com participating organizations is not a donation, but will be considered a commission to the receiving organization. The Internal Revenue Service requires Freedom21.com to file a form 1099 to each organization which receives such funds during the year. Freedom21.com has the sole right to decide eligibility for participating organizations.

There were many troubling responses offered by Judge John Glover Roberts, Jr. in the course of his confirmation testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

However, particular attention, in my view, ought be called to three of his responses which are quoted below following the questions which prompted them.

First, concerning the "pro bono" work which Judge Roberts did for Lambda Legal Defense, a homosexual activist group, in the run-up to a pro-homosexual decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Romer v. Evans, Roberts made clear that he found nothing morally objectionable in abetting the sodomite cause.

Does this mean that he will be a likely vote for the homosexual agenda in cases which come before the Supreme Court?

Second, in asserting that the First Amendment deals with a "prohibition on establishment of a religion", Judge Roberts is either reflecting an extraordinary ignorance of the actual First Amendment language, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" – – – language which was inserted in the Bill of Rights to prevent Federal interference with religious establishments in the several states.

The implication of Judge Roberts’ statement in this interlocution is that he rejects acceptance of the fact that America got its start as a Christian republic, not as a pluralistic democracy. This position should be a source of concern for those who oppose unconstitutional judicial interference with the acknowledgment of God through public prayer, displays of the Ten Commandments, and the statement in the Pledge of Allegiance that we are "one nation under God".

In a similar vein, Judge Roberts told California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who asked for his views about the separation of church and state, that "When it comes to judging…I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source".

This is an extraordinarily troubling confession, inasmuch as our entire common law system of jurisprudence is predicated on the Bible, the rock on which our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are each founded.

U.S. SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA) CHAIRMAN, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: "Let me move…to your participation pro bono in Romer, where you gave some advice on the arguments to those who were upholding gay rights. There’s a quotation by Walter Smith, who was the lawyer at Hogan Hartson in charge of pro bono work. And he had this to say about your participation in that case, supporting her, trying to help the gay community in the case in the Supreme Court. Mr. Smith said, quote, ‘Every good lawyer knows that if there is something in his client’s cause that so personally offends you morally, religiously, or if it so offends you that you think it would undermine your ability to do your duty as a lawyer, then you shouldn’t take it on.’ And John – referring to you – wouldn’t have. So at a minimum, he had no concerns that would rise to that level. Does that accurately express your own sentiments in taking on the (inaudible) to the gay community in that case?"

JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR: "I never turned down a request. I think it’s right that if there had been something morally objectionable, I suppose I would have. But it was my view that lawyers don’t stand in the shoes of their clients and that good lawyers can give advice and argue any side of a case. And as I said, I was asked frequently to participate in that type of assistance for other partners at the firm. And I never turned anyone down."

CHAIRMAN SPECTER: "Do you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution?"

JUDGE ROBERTS: "Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways. It’s protected by the Fourth Amendment which provides that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects and papers is protected. It’s protected under the First Amendment dealing with prohibition on establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise."

U.S. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CALIF.): "In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy’s faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration. At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates of one’s religion. And he even said, I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. My question is: Do you?"

JUDGE ROBERTS: "I don’t know what that means when you say absolute separation. I do know this: that my faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source."

My friend, Dr. Rick Scarborough, the Founder and President of Vision America, has been a leader in the fight against judicial tyranny and in support of the religious liberties guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

On March 27 and 28, 2006, Dr. Scarborough will be hosting a conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. The agenda is as listed below. Please note that this conference was scheduled for October 17-18, 2005, but has been rescheduled.

March 27, 2006
8:30 – Conference Opens, Introductory Remarks
9:00 – Panel: News Media
10:00 – Speaker: Sen. Brownback 
10:30 – Panel: Hollywood and Christians
11:30 – Panel: Public Education Panel
12:30 – Lunch, Speakers: Sen. Santorum, Alan Keyes 
2:00 – Panel: Academia
3:00 – Speaker: Congressman DeLay
3:30 – Panel: Judiciary
4:30 – Panel: Left-Wing Activist Organizations
6:30 – Banquet, Speakers: Rick Scarborough, Zell Miller

March 28, 2006
8:30 – Conference convenes
9:00 – Panel: Promoting Faith In A Hostile Culture
10:00 – Speaker: Sen. Coburn
10:30 – Speaker: Gary Bauer 
11:00 – Panel: Our Judeo-Christian Roots
12:00 – Lunch, Speaker: Sen. Cornyn
2:00 – Panel: Christian Political Activism
3:00 – Speaker: Dr. Jerry Falwell 
4:30 – Speaker: Gov. Huckabee TBA
5:00 – 6:00 – Closing Remarks, Conference Adjourns

For more information: www.visionamerica.us or 866-522-5582

These comments have been prepared prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearings regarding President Bush’s appointment of John Glover Roberts, Jr. to William Rehnquist’s chair in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Because there is so much uncertainty about where Roberts will stand on many issues, it behooves us to await the conclusion of those hearings before making a final determination as to whether a conscientious Constitutional conservative should vote against Judge Roberts’ confirmation.

When Roberts was named to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor, the likelihood was that his service on the bench, compared to that of Mrs. O’Connor, would be a net plus.

However, it became a very different story when George Bush decided to make Roberts his replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist.

There are at least two reasons why this is so:

1. Mr. Justice Rehnquist was a consistent articulate opponent of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in Roe v. Wade.

2. Moreover, he was a consistent foe of pro-homosexual rulings by the court, in such cases as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, as well as in Bowers v. Hardwick, where his position was that of the Court majority.

There is reason to conclude that, to put it mildly, Roberts will be less dependable than was Rehnquist on the important issues of abortion and sodomy.

Here are some facts and opinions to consider:

As reported in the Los Angeles Times (Richard Serrano, 8/4/05): "Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay-rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

"Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work. While he did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme Court, he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case."

"The coalition won its case, 6 to 3, in what gay activists described at the time as the movement’s most important legal victory. The three dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology – Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. …"

"The lawyer who asked for his help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then-head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts did not hesitate. ‘He said, "Let’s do it." And it’s illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job,’ Smith said."

"Roberts did not mention his work on the gay-rights case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire released Tuesday.

"The committee asked for ‘specific instances’ in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them. …

"Jean Dubofsky, lead attorney on the case and a former member of the Colorado Supreme Court, said she came to Washington to prepare for the Supreme Court presentation and immediately was referred to Roberts.

" ‘Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to,’ Dubofsky said. ‘He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative, and hasn’t been very receptive to gay rights.’ "

"The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. Activists across the country cheered the victory. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff attorney for Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians based in New York, called it the ‘single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay-rights movement.’"

There are several reasons for conservatives, Christians, and Constitutionalists generally to be troubled by the voluntary assistance provided to the homosexual activists by Mr. Roberts. Among them are these:

1) Judge Roberts did not disclose his involvement when he responded to a specific question on the questionnaire he filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee;

2) Judge Roberts apparently had no moral objection to using his skills to advance the homosexual agenda;

3) It suggests an absence of an understanding by Mr. Roberts that homosexual conduct is sinful and ought to be discouraged;

4) It suggests that, as a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Roberts would divorce himself from common law principles and Biblical morality in determining his position in particular cases; and

5) It is another example of how Judge Roberts seems to go out of his way to pander to those on the Left who might otherwise oppose him."

*"John Roberts says he will honor established Supreme Court rulings, telling a Senate committee that legal precedents are important to ‘promoting the stability of the legal system.’ …‘Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system,’ he added. ‘A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.’ " Source: Hope Yen, Associated Press, www.abcnews.go.com, 8/3/05

"John Roberts pledged...to respect established rulings if confirmed to the Supreme Court, saying judges must recognize that their role is ‘not to solve society’s problems.’ …

"Roberts provided responses to a broad array of questions involving work history, political ties and views on judicial activism. His thoughts on that subject are considered critical to gauging his position on overturning the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion." Source: NewsMax.com, 8/3/05

*Edward Lazarus, a close friend of Judge John Roberts, expresses the view that "Roberts is not burdened by a Bork-like record of speaking out in his own voice….

"Roberts presents a sharp contrast to Bork in judicial philosophy. Roberts is already on record strongly disclaiming an allegiance to any particular theory of constitutional interpretation, such as original intent jurisprudence. Roberts says that he picks and chooses what interpretive tools to use (such as textual analysis, historical analysis, or reliance on precedent) depending on which tools seem best to fit a particular case. …"

"Putting politics aside, the current Court member Roberts most resembles is Stephen Breyer. Roberts is far more intellectual than Rehnquist, far more politic than Scalia, and – as noted above – far less extreme than Thomas." Source: Edward Lazarus, elazarus@findlaw.com, 8/5/05

*According to Human Events (8/15/05, p. 6), "On Feb. 16, 1982, as a special assistant to Atty. Gen. William French Smith, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts wrote a memo providing advice on how the attorney general could deal with criticism of the Reagan Justice Department from Human Events, National Review, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations in a speech he was scheduled to give to conservatives.

"One passage in Roberts’ memo discusses how the attorney general should handle conservative criticism of Sandra Day O’Connor, whom President Reagan had named to the Supreme Court the previous year. This passage cites five separate articles in Human Events about O’Connor and her less-than-conservative record. Three of these HE stories specifically cited a misleading internal Justice Department memo about O’Connor that had been written by then-Justice Department official Kenneth Starr. Roberts’ memo about how to finesse HE’s criticism was carbon-copied to Starr himself."

"In a July 18, 1981, story, which Roberts footnotes in his memo, Human Events had reported.[sic] ‘Even more serious, so far as conservatives are concerned was the July 7, 1981, memo for the attorney general from counselor Kenneth W. Starr. The memo states that Starr talked to O’Connor by phone on two occasions on July 6, and that she "provided the following information with respect to her public record on family-related issues." But if O’Connor provided the record, it was far from complete. For instance, the memo refers to [Arizona] House Bill 20, which virtually eliminated restrictions as to when a doctor could perform an abortion. "There is no record of how [state] Sen. O’Connor voted," says the Starr memo, "and she indicated that she has no recollection of how she voted." Yet, Dr. Carolyn Gerster, the leader of the right-to-life movement in Arizona, has since forwarded to the attorney general a copy of an April 30, 1970, article in the Arizona Republic which boldly states that O’Connor voted in favor of the legislation.

"The Justice Department memo also completely omits from the O’Connor record her April 23, 1974, vote in the [Arizona] Senate Judiciary Committee against a resolution urging Congress to support a human life amendment to the Constitution. Why, right to lifers are asking, wasn’t this important vote in the memo? Did Mrs. O’Connor’s memory fail her, or did the Justice Department fail to include it?’

"In responding to this and similar reports in HE, Roberts wrote: ‘A related criticism focuses on the screening and appointment of federal judges, highlighted by the O’Connor debate. The assertion is that appointees are not ideologically committed to the President’s policies, again with particular emphasis on the social agenda. …"

" ‘Here again I do not think we should respond with a "yes, they are" ’; rather we should shift the debate and briefly touch on our judicial restraint themes (for which this audience should give us some credit). It really should not matter what the personal ideology of our appointees may be, so long as they recognize that their ideology should have no role in the decisional process – i.e., so long as they believe in judicial restraint. This theme should be glossed somewhat, because of the platform, but we can make the point that much criticism of our appointees has been misdirected.’ [Emphasis in original.]

"The ‘platform’ to which Roberts refers is presumably the 1980 Republican Party platform, which called for the appointment of judges ‘who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.’ " Source: Human Events, 8/15/05, p. 6

*"Democrats should recognize an olive branch when they see it.

"By choosing John G. Roberts to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, President Bush came as close as possible to finding a non-ideological, consensus nominee who can also lay claim to being a Republican. …

"Roberts has no far-reaching ideology, no creative articles, no revolutionary plans for constitutional law. He looks like an emblem of the Washington establishment….

"He is most likely to follow the center of the court in its current direction … as a standing member of the Washington establishment he won’t try to turn the ship around or steer it to a completely different port. … Roberts is no Robert Bork…. Confirming Roberts could also be the first step in bringing consensus to the Supreme Court itself." Source: John Yoo, The Washington Post, 7/21/05, p. A23

*"Supreme Court nominee Judge John G. Roberts wrote that Congress should not be able to strip federal courts of jurisdiction in cases involving school prayer, according to a previously undisclosed document obtained by The Washington Times."

"The document contradicts newspaper and wire-service reports that suggest he favored legislation aimed at barring federal courts from reviewing school prayer cases."

" ‘Such bills were bad policy and should be opposed on policy grounds,’ he wrote in a May 6, 1985, memo to his boss, White House Counsel Fred Fielding. …

"Mr. Roberts wrote the 1985 memo in response to a request from the White House Office of Management and Budget, which sought a legal opinion on the proposed Voluntary School Prayer Act of 1985.

" ‘This bill would divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear any case involving voluntary school prayer,’ he wrote on White House stationery.

"Mr. Roberts then noted that he had already looked into the issue when he was an assistant attorney general. Although he concluded such bills were ‘bad policy,’ he acknowledged they were not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

" ‘After an exhaustive review at the Department of Justice, I determined that

such bills were within the constitutional powers of Congress to fix the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,’ he explained. …

"Mr. Roberts believed such bills should be opposed on policy, not constitutional, grounds…." Source: Bill Sammon, The Washington Times, 7/28/05, p. A22

Barring evidence to the contrary which might emerge from the confirmation hearings, it would seem that the confirmation of Judge Roberts to replace William Rehnquist would be a net loss for the "conservative" cause.

If I were a United States Senator, here follow some of the questions which I would direct to him:

1. To what degree would a Justice Roberts feel bound by precedent, even in cases which he acknowledges to have been wrongly decided, such as Roe v. Wade?

2. Is Judge Roberts prepared to set aside the "Lemon test" which requires that public acknowledgment of God have a secular purpose?

3. What view does Judge Roberts have concerning the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would Judge Roberts reference foreign law, foreign constitutions, foreign court rulings and "world opinion" in formulating his Supreme Court opinions?

5. How does Judge Roberts interpret the proper application of the "good Behaviour" clause in Article III of the Constitution?

6. Would Judge Roberts conclude as a Justice that, even though Article III Constitutionally authorizes restrictions on the Federal judiciary that it ought not be applied, for reasons of prudence?

7. Does Judge Roberts believe that Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided? What about Hardwick v. Bowers? What about Lawrence v. Texas?

8. Is it legitimate, in Judge Roberts’ view, for the Federal government to fund organizations which engage in policy advocacy?

9. When you are faced with the possibility of overturning a previous Supreme Court decision which you believe to have been wrongly decided, what factors would you take into account in deciding whether to overturn rather than adhering to stare decisis? How much emphasis would you give to the ability of people to react by changing future behavior if overturning would have no impact on their previous behavior?

10. What do you believe that the members of the Constitutional Convention and the state ratification conventions understood to be the definition of "interstate commerce"? On what do you base this definition?

11. Do you believe that the phrase, "the people", has the same meaning everywhere it appears in the Constitution? If not, what different meanings would you assign to the phrase?

12. Given that the Constitution assigns Congress the power to "declare war", what limits does that put on the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief?

13. When interpreting the Constitution, how much authority should the debates in the ratifying conventions and the Constitutional Convention have?

14. How did the authors of the First Amendment define "an establishment of religion"? Has that definition been changed by any subsequent amendments to the Constitution?

September 1 — This afternoon I participated in a two-hour Claremont Institute Workshop being held in the context of the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association at the Wardman Park Marriott Hotel in Washington, D.C. During the panel Michael Ledeen, who has an office adjacent of Mrs. Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute, said he opposes military action against Iran but believes that the United States should take active measures to support an internal democratic revolution against the incumbent Iranian regime. 

On a separate matter, I challenged the comments of one of the panelists who argued that the government of the United States is less subject to destabilization than any government in recorded history. I said that events in New Orleans should be a lesson to us all, in that a single nuclear warhead on a scud missile launched 100 miles offshore could, via electromagnetic pulse, make the entire country similar to post Katrina New Orleans, except for the problem of flooding. 

I said that destabilization could similarly be the consequence of a nuclear or chemical or biological attack on U.S. soil, or a nuclear strike against U.S. population of the sort which has been promised by leaders of the Communist Chinese People’s Liberation Army should the U.S. government intervene to preserve an independent democratic government on Taiwan in the face of an attack by Beijing.

During the late 1970’s, as Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, I organized and led a 50-state tour mobilizing opposition to the Jimmy Carter/Leonid Brezhnev SALT Treaty, which, in our view, posed a serious threat to the vital security interests of the United States. During that tour, I was privileged to be joined by about a dozen of America’s top retired military leaders, including Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, General Richard Stilwell, Lt. General Daniel O. Graham, Lt. General Gordon Sumner, Major General Stewart Meyer, Major General Milnor Roberts, Major General George Keegan, Major General John, K. Singlaub, Major General Vernon Lewis, Brig, General Robert Richardson, Colonel James Short, and anti-SALT Chairman Brig. General Al Knight.

One of my favorites was retired Chief of Naval Operations Elmo Zumwalt, a man of extraordinary character and courage who is perceived by many to be a liberal, but whose life story embodied patriotism, heroism, and personal sacrifice. I vividly recall some of the discussions I had with Admiral Zumwalt, from whom I learned much, and it was a particular pleasure for me to meet his magnificent wife, Mouza. Admiral Zumwalt met Mouza soon after entering Shanghai harbor in 1945. Mrs. Zumwalt died at 83 on August 25. Her husband died in 2000.

As reported in The Washington Post, Mrs. Zumwalt "lived in 40 homes, raised four children, ‘kept the books, and made life rich in tiny nooks’, her husband wrote…in a poem titled "Tribute to a Golden Partner".

You raised morale on many ships,
Solved many family problems on
        ocean trips.

"‘She was an important member of the official party, meeting with Navy wives, American and allied, helping them with their problems, raising their spirits, and calling my attention to many things I had not other way of finding out about,’ Zumwalkt said in his 1976 book ‘On Watch.’

"During her husband’s tour of duty in Vietnam, Mrs. Zumwalt assisted the families of Navy prisoners of war and those missing in action. She worked to raise money for the ‘Pigs and Chicken’ program, which imported animals from the Philippines to provide protein to the Vietnamese people.

"In the early 1970s, Mrs. Zumwalt sat in on focus groups dealing with race relations in the Navy. Her husband, as chief of naval operations, ordered the Navy to end racial discrimination and is credited with creating the modern Navy. …

"Mouza Coutelais-du-Roche was born in Harbin, Manchuria, the daughter of a French businessman and a Russian mother. Her parents had escaped from Siberia after the communist revolution and settled in a white Russian community in Harbin. She was 10 when the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1932. …

"In October 1945, when she was 22, she met a young U.S. Navy lieutenant at a dinner party at her aunt and uncle’s home. When she entered the room, Zumwalt, who had been in Shanghai for just a week, was forever smitten.

"‘Tall and well-poised, she was smiling a smile of such radiance that the very room seemed suddenly transformed,’ he wrote in ‘On Watch.’ 

"She spoke no English, and he spoke no Russian, although he had studied the language. He asked her if he could come back for Russian lessons. Within three weeks, he asked her to marry him. … 

"In 1983, her first child, Elmo R. Zumwalt III, was found to have lymphoma. When he died in 1988, his death was attributed to the effects of Agent Orange. He had been a lieutenant in the Navy commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam when his father ordered the spraying of the potent chemical agent.

"‘She understood a nation’s need for a military to answer the call,’ said her other son, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. James G. Zumwalt II of Herndon. ‘She understood the risks.’ 

"Later, she joined her husband in starting the Marrow Foundation to raise funds for the National Marrow Donor Program. The Mouza Zumwalt Good Deed Fund was established in November to support self-employed people going through the transplant process.

"She enjoyed classical music and was close to the level of a concert pianist, said her daughter Mouzetta Zumwalt-Weathers of Cary, N.C. She also loved old movies.

"In addition to her son and daughter, survivors include another daughter, Ann Zumwalt Coppola of Longmeadow, Mass. and six grandchildren."

Admiral Zumwalt’s book, a personally inscribed copy of which is a great treasure in the Phillips family is something which I regard as must reading.

Charles Orndorff, Administrative Vice Chairman of The Conservative Caucus and a distinguished Constitutional scholar in his own right, has proposed that Supreme Court nominee, John Glover Roberts, Jr., be asked the following questions during his confirmation hearings. These are in addition to the questions which I previously passed on to the Judiciary Committee.

1. When you are faced with the possibility of overturning a previous Supreme Court decision which you believe to have been wrongly decided, what factors would you take into account in deciding whether to overturn rather than adhering to stare decisis? How much emphasis would you give to the ability of people to react by changing future behavior if overturning would have no impact on their previous behavior?

2. What do you believe that the members of the Constitutional Convention and the state ratification conventions understood to be the definition of "interstate commerce"? On what do you base this definition?

3. Do you believe that the phrase, "the people", has the same meaning everywhere it appears in the Constitution? If not, what different meanings would you assign to the phrase?

4. Given that the Constitution assigns Congress the power to "declare war", what limits does that put on the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief?

5. When interpreting the Constitution, how much authority should the debates in the ratifying conventions and the Constitutional Convention have?

6. How did the authors of the First Amendment define "an establishment of religion"? Has that definition been changed by any subsequent amendments to the Constitution?