by Michael Bargo, Jr.
This nullification of established law is nothing but a theft of governmental authority -- and it appears that President Obama and his party have been the nation’s greatest practitioners of it.
The
Declaration of Independence established the basic idea that the
government of the nation must be made up of elected legislators who
answer to the will of the people. But in recent years the Democrat Party
of the United States, and specifically President Obama, have made a
willful effort to enact laws and policies without the consent of the
people.
Democrats are engaged in dismantling the legislative branches of the Federal and state governments using two strategies. The first strategy is to refuse to enforce existing legislation. The goal of this strategy is to undo the legislation of the past, and by default, make actions legal that were previously illegal. All laws require residents to either perform an action, such as the law that mandates a drivers license to operate an automobile on public streets; or to refrain from an action, such as the laws that require drivers not to exceed a posted speed limit.
There are always some people who, for various reasons, want to avoid complying with the law. But if the law is never enforced, or worse, if public officials go on television and proclaim that the law will not be enforced, then there is no reason for the majority of people to obey the law.
At some point if laws are not enforced then the original intent of the legislators, and therefore the people they represented, is nullified. In effect, a law is amended or repealed without the consent of the people.
The most prominent area where laws are repealed through lack of enforcement is in the issue of Federal immigration law enforcement. Democrats have used their non-enforcement strategy to repeal immigration law.
It is fair to characterize this action as perpetrated primarily through the Democrat Party, since their officials have taken the most drastic, and illegal, actions to nullify immigration law. For example, in 1979 the City of Los Angeles issued Special Order 40. This order, issued by the police department, clearly stated that it will not play any role in the enforcement of Federal immigration law. To this day the order remains in effect.
Interfering with Immigration enforcement is a violation of the 1996 Immigration Act. It is also a violation of law for a police chief to openly disobey laws that are on the books. Nothing is done since promoting the movement of illegal immigrants is obviously a high priority on the Democrat Party’s national agenda.
Kim Davis, a Court Clerk in Carter County, Kentucky, was arrested and jailed for refusing to sign marriage certificates requested by same sex couples, just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled, improperly, that same-sex marriage is an issue under the purview of the Constitution. Yet, to this day, not one official in San Francisco who refused to follow ICE directives to retain illegal immigrants has been arrested. Kim Davis’ actions did not lead to any deaths.
Similarly, when Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin proposed a law making any illegal immigrant guilty of a felony, Chicago’s Mayor Daley immediately stated that if that proposal became law he would “order the police to not enforce it.” He was not arrested. Not a single public official in any town, city, or state who openly flouted immigration law has ever been arrested and jailed.
Having repealed existing legislation through selective non-enforcement the next step was for Democrats to enact their own. Since their larger goal is to disable the Federal governments’ legislative body, the Congress, President Obama has invented, in the past five years, other means of dismantling the ability of the people to pass and enforce laws through the Congress.
This contrast does not just point to hypocrisy or a double standard, it points to the reason for the double standard.
Kim Davis was challenging a law passed by fiat by unelected Supreme Court Justices. As appointed officials, justices do not respond to voters. They are not legislators. And as Chief Justice Roberts observed in his dissent, they were doing nothing but legislating law, since the terms marriage, married, or any other words refer referring to the institution of marriage do not exist in the Constitution. And the Constitution clearly states that any powers not given to the Federal government belong exclusively to the States.
President Obama’s actions prove he has knowingly and willfully disenfranchised Congress. He, with the help of Senate leader Harry Reid, refused to pass a Federal budget for over four years. The budget is a list of appropriations approved by the representatives of the people. By refusing to pass a budget, the president bypassed the votes of the people. Unchallenged, he then became more emboldened to violate the Constitution and dismantle Congress by issuing executive orders, such as his order to stop deportations of illegal immigrants.
Not only does the Constitution clearly state that naturalization is a power exclusive to Congress, the president affirmed this when he had his attorney general go after Arizona for SB 1070. The president’s Justice Department at that time argued that Arizona had no legal authority to enforce or not enforce immigration law, since only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration law. Then he violated his own assertion.
These facts show that Democrats have long been engaged in an effort to seize control of the government of the U.S. They are dismantling the legislatures of the states and Congress with a two-pronged attack: 1) to repeal existing laws by refusing to enforce them, and 2) to issue new laws and regulations through Obama’s executive orders, appointed judges, SCOTUS justices, the four public sector unions, Federal public union employees, and the 32 czars the president illegally appointed to make policy throughout the Federal government. Democrats seek to replace the “consent of the governed” with a small oligarchy of persons given power through appointment.
While Democrats have long disenfranchised voters at the micro level through vote fraud, their new macro tactic is to not worry about getting their party’s candidates elected to pass laws but to just go ahead and refuse to enforce laws that don’t agree with their party’s policies.
Democrats are not pursuing anarchy. President Obama is pursuing a carefully orchestrated national Democratic Party plan to dominate American politics, energy production, financial markets, foreign policy, social issues, and urban demographics for decades. Significantly, Obama’s two landmark achievements, the Iran “deal” and ObamaCare, were never supported by a majority of voters.
This nullification of established law is nothing but a theft of governmental authority. It is legislative and constitutional corruption. And it appears that President Obama and his party have been, up until now, the nation’s greatest practitioners of it.
This may be very disconcerting for those who vote for Democrats, since they have been convinced that Democrats stand for justice, equality, and civil rights. Democrats like to say they support voters’ rights. But their nullification of existing law proves that they totally disrespect the rights of voters in the past, and Obama’s executive orders and disdain for the legitimate legislative input of Congress prove an absolute disrespect of current voters. Democrats don’t want equality -- they want to rule it all.
Democrats are engaged in dismantling the legislative branches of the Federal and state governments using two strategies. The first strategy is to refuse to enforce existing legislation. The goal of this strategy is to undo the legislation of the past, and by default, make actions legal that were previously illegal. All laws require residents to either perform an action, such as the law that mandates a drivers license to operate an automobile on public streets; or to refrain from an action, such as the laws that require drivers not to exceed a posted speed limit.
There are always some people who, for various reasons, want to avoid complying with the law. But if the law is never enforced, or worse, if public officials go on television and proclaim that the law will not be enforced, then there is no reason for the majority of people to obey the law.
At some point if laws are not enforced then the original intent of the legislators, and therefore the people they represented, is nullified. In effect, a law is amended or repealed without the consent of the people.
The most prominent area where laws are repealed through lack of enforcement is in the issue of Federal immigration law enforcement. Democrats have used their non-enforcement strategy to repeal immigration law.
It is fair to characterize this action as perpetrated primarily through the Democrat Party, since their officials have taken the most drastic, and illegal, actions to nullify immigration law. For example, in 1979 the City of Los Angeles issued Special Order 40. This order, issued by the police department, clearly stated that it will not play any role in the enforcement of Federal immigration law. To this day the order remains in effect.
Interfering with Immigration enforcement is a violation of the 1996 Immigration Act. It is also a violation of law for a police chief to openly disobey laws that are on the books. Nothing is done since promoting the movement of illegal immigrants is obviously a high priority on the Democrat Party’s national agenda.
Kim Davis, a Court Clerk in Carter County, Kentucky, was arrested and jailed for refusing to sign marriage certificates requested by same sex couples, just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled, improperly, that same-sex marriage is an issue under the purview of the Constitution. Yet, to this day, not one official in San Francisco who refused to follow ICE directives to retain illegal immigrants has been arrested. Kim Davis’ actions did not lead to any deaths.
Similarly, when Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin proposed a law making any illegal immigrant guilty of a felony, Chicago’s Mayor Daley immediately stated that if that proposal became law he would “order the police to not enforce it.” He was not arrested. Not a single public official in any town, city, or state who openly flouted immigration law has ever been arrested and jailed.
Having repealed existing legislation through selective non-enforcement the next step was for Democrats to enact their own. Since their larger goal is to disable the Federal governments’ legislative body, the Congress, President Obama has invented, in the past five years, other means of dismantling the ability of the people to pass and enforce laws through the Congress.
This contrast does not just point to hypocrisy or a double standard, it points to the reason for the double standard.
Kim Davis was challenging a law passed by fiat by unelected Supreme Court Justices. As appointed officials, justices do not respond to voters. They are not legislators. And as Chief Justice Roberts observed in his dissent, they were doing nothing but legislating law, since the terms marriage, married, or any other words refer referring to the institution of marriage do not exist in the Constitution. And the Constitution clearly states that any powers not given to the Federal government belong exclusively to the States.
President Obama’s actions prove he has knowingly and willfully disenfranchised Congress. He, with the help of Senate leader Harry Reid, refused to pass a Federal budget for over four years. The budget is a list of appropriations approved by the representatives of the people. By refusing to pass a budget, the president bypassed the votes of the people. Unchallenged, he then became more emboldened to violate the Constitution and dismantle Congress by issuing executive orders, such as his order to stop deportations of illegal immigrants.
Not only does the Constitution clearly state that naturalization is a power exclusive to Congress, the president affirmed this when he had his attorney general go after Arizona for SB 1070. The president’s Justice Department at that time argued that Arizona had no legal authority to enforce or not enforce immigration law, since only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration law. Then he violated his own assertion.
These facts show that Democrats have long been engaged in an effort to seize control of the government of the U.S. They are dismantling the legislatures of the states and Congress with a two-pronged attack: 1) to repeal existing laws by refusing to enforce them, and 2) to issue new laws and regulations through Obama’s executive orders, appointed judges, SCOTUS justices, the four public sector unions, Federal public union employees, and the 32 czars the president illegally appointed to make policy throughout the Federal government. Democrats seek to replace the “consent of the governed” with a small oligarchy of persons given power through appointment.
While Democrats have long disenfranchised voters at the micro level through vote fraud, their new macro tactic is to not worry about getting their party’s candidates elected to pass laws but to just go ahead and refuse to enforce laws that don’t agree with their party’s policies.
Democrats are not pursuing anarchy. President Obama is pursuing a carefully orchestrated national Democratic Party plan to dominate American politics, energy production, financial markets, foreign policy, social issues, and urban demographics for decades. Significantly, Obama’s two landmark achievements, the Iran “deal” and ObamaCare, were never supported by a majority of voters.
This nullification of established law is nothing but a theft of governmental authority. It is legislative and constitutional corruption. And it appears that President Obama and his party have been, up until now, the nation’s greatest practitioners of it.
This may be very disconcerting for those who vote for Democrats, since they have been convinced that Democrats stand for justice, equality, and civil rights. Democrats like to say they support voters’ rights. But their nullification of existing law proves that they totally disrespect the rights of voters in the past, and Obama’s executive orders and disdain for the legitimate legislative input of Congress prove an absolute disrespect of current voters. Democrats don’t want equality -- they want to rule it all.
Michael Bargo, Jr.
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/disenfranchising_american_voters.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment