OK. I'll make my point in a less flippant, albeit more boring way. The purpose of a republic is to have reasoned deliberation among the people's representatives when new laws are necessary. In this forum the virulent democratic passions of the body politic tend to be buffered allowing for a more measured, calculated approach to creating a solution to a problem. This is also why we have a bicameral Congress - although the tempering effect intended by the Founding Fathers was significantly watered down by the 17th amendment which declared Senators to be elected by popular vote instead of selected by state legislatures. The federal government was built on the principle of separation of enumerated powers outlined by the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. On January 21, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama made this oath to the American People, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The language of this solemn oath of office comes from the Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I. Section III of Article II of the Constitution charges the President who takes that oath with executing the law. It clearly states, "he (the President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The Constitution commands the President to execute the law in the clearest terms possible. Both the prerogative of creating law and the ambiguity of choosing which laws to enforce does not fall under the oft abused and inflated notion of executive privilege. The President is under oath to carry out the law, whether or not he agrees with it. Such is the mark of a true statesman. Conversely, following constitutional procedure and adhering to the rule of law is not the modus operandi of a third world leader.
Last week, it came to light that the President, yet again, took upon himself the power to determine which laws he will enforce. Article I, Section 8 itemizes the Powers of Congress. Among these are powers relating to immigration and naturalization, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws." Currently, the United States has a uniform naturalization law. It is flawed and needs some legislative upgrades. Several proposals have been mulled over by Congress. There are important considerations such as national security, human trafficking, the drug trade, the impact of deportations on families and children of people here illegally, the strain on our social services and debt to name but a few. On December 18, 2010, the DREAM Act amnesty plan failed to pass the Senate. This occurred because the majority of the Senators knew their constituents were not in favor of amnesty. Congress, the legislative body charged with making any and all laws pertaining to the federal Union as per the Constitution of the United States, therefore determined that amnesty was not the answer to the illegal immigration problem.
In a glaringly cynical political move intended to garner a firmer grip on the Hispanic vote for the 2012 election, the President violated his oath of office. On August 18, 2011, the Department of Homeland Security, which falls under the direction of the Office of the President, determined the decision of Congress was wrong. Having thus taken exception to the legislative result of our constitutional process, the White House directed Secretary Janet Napolitano to simply disregard portions of the law. This flies in the face of DHS' mission statement: "ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security and one of the three Department components charged with the civil enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. Our primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration." Clearly, a conscientious refusal to return people who have entered the United States illegally to their country of origin is a dereliction of DHS' mandated duty to "Protect the Integrity of the Immigration System."
There are two expedients here. First, is the issue of illegal immigration itself. This is not an inconsequential matter and it has far reaching consequences for the nation's future viability. History teaches this clearly. Utopian pipe dreams of a borderless global cabal aside, weak nations are unable to maintain their borders. Weak nations that fail to maintain the integrity of their national borders gradually fail to maintain their sovereignty. Weak nations that fail to hang on to their sovereignty inexorably loose their culture and identity. Weak nations that fail to perpetuate their culture and identity cease to be nations. They become a history lesson for future generations of wise men to ponder over and for the powerful and the masses to ignore. I have written many times concerning the necessity of a functional immigration/naturalization process. The immigration debate has been cantankerously political. Opposing illegal immigration is an unpopular and demonized position to take in public. It is a point of view many seek to undermine as simplistically racially motivated and or xenophobic (another of those manipulative "bic " adjectives used to exert control over people by unjustly shaming them. Used in context of the immigration debate it is intended to make patriotism seem excessive and ugly - the proverbial "ugly American"). The actual motivating logic and reason of substantive nature, rule of law and maintaining national sovereignty and the integrity of the Union while still allowing people to immigrate - legally, are wholly ignored. This is largely because substantive arguments rooted in common sense with a long term view require much more complicated arguments to combat. Which leads to my second expedient - doing something the right way verses doing it the easy way.
In America, the process is truly what makes the nation unique and successful. To throw the process aside is to destroy the country. Barack Obama and his appointees have exposed themselves as incapable of submitting to the government interfering constraints of our constitutional order. It appears the White House ends justify any means necessary. This was seen with the increased economic interference meted out by the EPA upon industry following Congress' rejection of Cap and Trade. It seems the Obama administration is only happy with the deliberative, constitutional model of representative government insofar as the laws passed fit their world view. As another example, in what in later years is sure to be a case study in quintessential politicking, the Justice Department under the direction of the White House has all but openly made manifest that as a matter of policy it will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that DOMA is inherently biased against homosexuals. Whether one charged with enforcing a law agrees with the premise of marriage between a man and woman being the building block of a healthy, sustainable society or not is irrelevant; the law of the land must be enforced by those bound by oath to do so. It's amazing such a simple and fundamental premise as this can be so blatantly disregarded by those entrusted with such stewardship and with such little public outcry.
It is the sworn duty of the Justice Department and the White House to see the law is executed. If fulfilling such a job description does not yield sufficient job satisfaction for the Justice Department and the White House then it may be suggested a change in career is in order. The Constitution is supposed to create an air of predictability in both things political and economic. Uncertainty is to be expected when the government steps out of its cage. Frankly, I'm tired of the C.E.S.P.
0 comments:
Post a Comment