View Full Version : Issues or America????
Sowell, yet again, providing a not so subtle reminder - of just what is at stake - to some who seem to love to get lost...in that forest, or the spell check, or the grammar police, or PC police, or blaming Bush, or demanding tax returns, or spending our way out of debt, or contraception, or growing government...or...or...
"Issues" or America?
TownHall.com
Thomas Sowell
8/21/12
Excerpts:
There are some very serious issues at stake in this year's election -- so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.
The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.
For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama's recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.
The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States -- and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.
No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with.
If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.
When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws, and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.
When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution -- and ourselves.
If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/08/21/issues_or_america
If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/08/21/issues_or_america
A death knell for the Country as it was founded.
A death knell for the Country as it was founded.
Agreed.
Another excerpt from the article.
"There have been many wise warnings that freedom is seldom lost all at once. It is usually eroded away, bit by bit, until it is all gone. You may not notice a gradual erosion while it is going on, but you may eventually be shocked to discover one day that it is all gone, that we have been reduced from citizens to subjects, and the Constitution has become just a meaningless bunch of paper."
Sowell, yet again, providing a not so subtle reminder - of just what is at stake - to some who seem to love to get lost...in that forest, or the spell check, or the grammar police, or PC police, or blaming Bush, or demanding tax returns, or spending our way out of debt, or contraception, or growing government...or...or...
"Issues" or America?
TownHall.com
Thomas Sowell
8/21/12
Excerpts:
There are some very serious issues at stake in this year's election -- so many that some people may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Individual issues are the trees, but the forest is the future of America as we have known it.
The America that has flourished for more than two centuries is being quietly but steadily dismantled by the Obama administration, during the process of dealing with particular issues.
For example, the merits or demerits of President Obama's recent executive order, suspending legal liability for young people who are here illegally, presumably as a result of being brought here as children by their parents, can be debated pro and con. But such a debate overlooks the much more fundamental undermining of the whole American system of Constitutional government.
The separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is at the heart of the Constitution of the United States -- and the Constitution is at the heart of freedom for Americans.
No President of the United States is authorized to repeal parts of legislation passed by Congress. He may veto the whole legislation, but then Congress can override his veto if they have enough votes. Nevertheless, every President takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws that have been passed and sustained -- not just the ones he happens to agree with.
If laws passed by the elected representatives of the people can be simply over-ruled unilaterally by whoever is in the White House, then we are no longer a free people, choosing what laws we want to live under.
When a President can ignore the plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, then we no longer have "a government of laws, and not of men" but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic.
When we confine our debates to the merits or demerits of particular executive orders, we are tacitly accepting arbitrary rule. The Constitution of the United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution. But, if we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of particular policies imposed by executive orders, and vote solely on that basis, then we have failed to protect the Constitution -- and ourselves.
If Obama gets reelected, he knows that he need no longer worry about what the voters think about anything he does. Never having to face them again, he can take his arbitrary rule by decree as far as he wants. He may be challenged in the courts but, if he gets just one more Supreme Court appointment, he can pick someone who will rubber stamp anything he does and give him a 5 to 4 majority.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/08/21/issues_or_america
How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?
How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?
For one, they are not the president of the United States - setting the overall tone for the nation. There will always be discretion in our free society. There will always be those who abuse that discretion. For now, let's get rid of (fire - in the upcoming election) the most obvious and highest ranking abuser. One who has the power to appoint folks who will shape the very nature of the entire nation.
Or, you can start at the local level and address your local Sheiff, DA, et al, situation - I submit you can do both.
How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?
Good point, but the difference is obvious, which is the size of the jurisdiction and the ability of the people to move in/out of the same.
Critics of one political party or another have been sounding the imminent 'death knell' of America since Thomas Jefferson became POTUS against Alexander Hamilton's wishes and machinations to prevent it.
Personally, I look at the immigration directive as an effort to stir Congress to act upon something which falls under their purview...and a matter they've been shilly-shallying around with for decades. I hope it works.
Because Congress does retain the authority to 'counter' such directives from a POTUS or to 'pink slip' the POTUS if necessary, I look upon my vote for my Congress-critters as being more important to America than my vote for POTUS.
I'll wait and see.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Good point, but the difference is obvious, which is the size of the jurisdiction and the ability of the people to move in/out of the same.
I've never lived anywhere, where every on the books are enforced. Can you name one? What prevents a person from moving out of the USA?
I've never lived anywhere, where every ?law? on the books are enforced. Can you name one? What prevents a person from moving out of the USA?
1. None that I know of - so no. What was your point in asking that? :confused:
2. Nothing. My point was that it is far easier to move from (or effect change in) one jurisdiction than it is to do said to the entire country. IMO.
Because Congress does retain the authority to 'counter' such directives from a POTUS or to 'pink slip' the POTUS if necessary, I look upon my vote for my Congress-critters as being more important to America than my vote for POTUS.
I'll wait and see.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
'Bout 75 days. :lifter
Badger52
08-23-2012, 10:56
I'd also suggest that local jurisdictions make those choices, quite often, based on what they have the resources to address, based upon how much of their blood, sweat & tears gets expended to justify the result - said result stemming from the authority of their Legislature.
My problem with a proclamation-happy Chief Executive is that they think they just get to "say" and it will be so, resources (and the Legislative authority from the Constitution) be damned. Laws are passed by a legislature, local or national, and that's what's being decided upon in a local situation when someone exercises prosecutorial discretion. A proclamation by a Chief Executive, circumventing that process - local or national - is just that. Local legislatures seem to get more up in arms over Gubernatorial wielding of edicts these days than this Congress has over the current POTUS. In my mind, that's their shame. On that specific issue I agree with Richard; the denizens of Congress should be the recipients of a more discerning eye. This particular sitting body seems to be of the Semper Jello variety.
My problem with a proclamation-happy Chief Executive is that they think they just get to "say" and it will be so, resources (and the Legislative authority from the Constitution) be damned.
It's even worse when he's incompetent.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/immigration-agents-file-suit-against-napolitano-over-amnesty-program/?test=latestnews
Ten federal immigration agents have filed suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano claiming recent directives are forcing them to break the law and ignore their duties when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants.
The suit was filed Thursday in Texas federal court by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. It challenges recent directives allowing some illegal immigrants -- particularly non-felons and those who came to the U.S. as children -- to stay and, in some cases, get work permits.
The suit, obtained by Fox News, says the agents are being forced to "violate federal law." It says the new directive "unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress." ICE Director John Morton is also named as a defendant.
Kris Kobach, lead attorney on the case, equated the move to give thousands of illegal immigrants a reprieve to the failed Fast and Furious gun-walking operation.
"In both instances, the Obama administration ordered federal law enforcement agents to break the law, to ignore the laws that they're supposed to enforce, and, in the case of the ICE agents, to actually break federal laws that say you're supposed to deport certain people," he said. "And in each case, the Obama administration seems to be doing so for political reasons."
Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, is also an adviser to Mitt Romney and a co-author of the Arizona illegal immigration law.
Napolitano defended the new rules during testimony last month before the House Judiciary Committee.
"These policies promote the efficient use of our resources ensuring that we do not divert them away from the removal of convicted criminals by pursuing the removal of young people who came to this country as children and who have called no other country home," she said.
The Supreme Court has recognized the ability of the federal government to use what's known as "prosecutorial discretion" in the enforcement of immigration law. In the recent case over the Arizona immigration law, the court defended the government's ability to make "some discretionary decisions."
In the suit, the agents are asking a federal judge to block the directives in question, saying they amount to an end-run around Congress and violate the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Republican lawmakers released a flurry of statements Thursday backing up the suit and challenging the administration policy.
"The Obama administration's amnesty program not only rewards lawbreakers, it also forces ICE agents to violate federal law. ICE agents should enforce our immigration laws and apprehend illegal immigrants. But the Obama administration makes it impossible for ICE agents to do their jobs," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said in a statement.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/immigration-agents-file-suit-against-napolitano-over-amnesty-program/?test=latestnews#ixzz24OPOBuZ8
FWIW, below is a link to a compilation of presidential executive orders.
I think Sowell (and indeed, the title of the piece) warns the electorate of falling into the "issue trap" (local cops and DA's exercising discretion, etc.,) at the expense of the larger issues at stake. I take Obama at his word when he says that he wants to "fundamentally transform this country."
Perhaps it is not merely the executive orders issued by Obama...but the attitude and not so veiled underlying political philosophy of the man - that gives a great many of us grave concern. With all due respect, IMO Obama is no Hamilton or Jefferson.
Hopefully, folks are right and I am wrong - and this Obama term has not damaged the country. Time will tell.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
How is this any different from the Police Chiefs/Sheriffs/DAs who pick and choose which laws their departments will enforce/not enforce?
Then why do we even bother to pass laws? Why do we even bother to vote other members of our society into office to even bother to create them when they are going to be ignored anyway? This is just a microcosim of the Nation. We are either a nation of laws or we are not.
This President swore to uphold and defend the same Constitution you and I did. The difference between the two is that I know by choosing to ignore certain laws (for example speeding) I will be held accountable for it. The current POTUS knows no one is holding him accountable so he can do whatever he damn well pleases. Hopefully that changes in a couple of months.
MOO, Sowell's editorial would have been more persuasive had he done any of the following:
Included Bush the Younger's use of signing statements.
Placed his discussion of the current president into the context of the "imperial presidency."
Developed the argument that the separation of powers reflected a gentlemen's agreement among the founders in which those in power would not seek to find and to extend the limits of one branch's power at the expense of another.
Addressed his core assumptions by asking the question: Is American political philosophy more reflective of Locke or of Hobbes?
Looked at other examples in which one branch or another sought to expand its power and how that crisis did or did not impact American freedom.
Discussed how a pragmatic approach to governance threatens the American way of life when that approach has been a defining characteristic of American political culture since before the War of American Revolution.
Reminded readers that the legislative branch of the federal government is the most powerful and if the executive branch gets out of hand, it is only because Congress allows it to do so.
Discussed the impact of ideological rigidity on the current political environment.
MOO, Sowell's editorial would have been more persuasive had he done any of the following:
Included Bush the Younger's use of signing statements.
Placed his discussion of the current president into the context of the "imperial presidency."
Developed the argument that the separation of powers reflected a gentlemen's agreement among the founders in which those in power would not seek to find and to extend the limits of one branch's power at the expense of another.
Addressed his core assumptions by asking the question: Is American political philosophy more reflective of Locke or of Hobbes?
Looked at other examples in which one branch or another sought to expand its power and how that crisis did or did not impact American freedom.
Discussed how a pragmatic approach to governance threatens the American way of life when that approach has been a defining characteristic of American political culture since before the War of American Revolution.
Reminded readers that the legislative branch of the federal government is the most powerful and if the executive branch gets out of hand, it is only because Congress allows it to do so.
Discussed the impact of ideological rigidity on the current political environment.
Dude, there is only so much space one can use in writing an article. Now if he was writing a book....
Sigaba, good questions. Sowell, probably did not have a 200,000 word budget for the online article. But, to his credit he did stimulate thought and discussion. As did you. You have also touched on a matter of some longstanding interest - whether it is really more powerful to make law, to interpret law, or enforce law. And yes, signing statements can be similarly problematic. But, Bush is gone.
Sowell did suggest that we not get lost in the weeds.
Sigaba, good questions. Sowell, probably did not have a 200,000 word budget for the online article. But, to his credit he did stimulate thought and discussion. As did you. You have also touched on a matter of some longstanding interest - whether it is really more powerful to make law, to interpret law, or enforce law. And yes, signing statements can be similarly problematic. But, Bush is gone.
Sowell did suggest that we not get lost in the weeds.
Sarcasm. Because beating the hell out of people is illegal. :munchin
Sigaba, good questions. Sowell, probably did not have a 200,000 word budget for the online article. But, to his credit he did stimulate thought and discussion. As did you. You have also touched on a matter of some longstanding interest - whether it is really more powerful to make law, to interpret law, or enforce law. And yes, signing statements can be similarly problematic. But, Bush is gone.
Sowell did suggest that we not get lost in the weeds.The essay is 720 words. That's almost three pages of double spaced text. Mr. Sowell is a skilled writer. Had he wanted to, he could have stepped away from the "America was going great until the liberals arrived":rolleyes: narrative and thrown in one or two brief paragraphs that went along the lines of "This is nothing new." Such an approach could have cued readers into the ever so slight possibility that changing the guy in office in and of itself is not going to change the tone of politics in America nor the effectiveness of the federal government.
IMO, if a polemicist--on the left or the right--is going to make a political argument based upon an interpretation of American history he ignores the "weeds" at his own peril.
MOO, Sowell's editorial would have been more persuasive had he done any of the following:
Reminded readers that the legislative branch of the federal government is the most powerful and if the executive branch gets out of hand, it is only because Congress allows it to do so.
For about 74 days and a wake-up. :lifter
Sarcasm. Because beating the hell out of people is illegal. :munchinHow sustainable is either approach given the fact that the Democratic Party draws more support from highly educated Americans than the GOP?
Just because one sits on the right side of the aisle doesn't mean that one's arguments are automatically correct.
Looked at other examples in which one branch or another sought to expand its power and how that crisis did or did not impact American freedom.
The case of Andrew Johnson vs Congress over Reconstruction and the Tenure of Office Act is a good one.
Richard :munchin
Such an approach could have cued readers into the ever so slight possibility that changing the guy in office in and of itself is not going to change the tone of politics in America nor the effectiveness of the federal government.
Perhaps Sowell believes, as I do, that changing the man in the Oval office will in fact change the tone - emanating from the WH.
R&R, while unlikely to be perfect, should lead change that will certainly reduce the size and scope and cost of government. IMO, that alone, will make government more effective. Lord knows we have tried the tax and spend and spend and spend and spend approach far too long. For example, look at where that formula has taken California, economically speaking.
No, Sowell is indeed speaking to a certain segment and clearly that segment does not appear to include you. The only weeds that many Obama supporters truly care about are of the smoking variety. No matter...I'm confident that R&R bring weed killer to the equation.
How sustainable is either approach given the fact that the Democratic Party draws more support from highly educated Americans than the GOP?
Just because one sits on the right side of the aisle doesn't mean that one's arguments are automatically correct.
Wow Sigaba. :(