On the President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws

PresidentsDutyToFaithfullyExecuteLaws  <– PDF version

President Barack “I lied, period” Obama recently issued an Executive Order that exempted many illegal aliens from deportation if they met certain nebulous requirements.  It is alleged by His Most High Incompetence that this order would affect only about 5 million people, but there is no reason to believe that figure in favor of any higher number.  Many have claimed that Obama’s particular Executive Order is illegal, since, by waiving a part of immigration law, he is failing to faithfully execute the laws per his oath of office as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  So far, 25 states have joined in a lawsuit seeking to have the order overruled, and the next Congress has claimed it will do the same (probably by endorsing and expanding it).

But the real question is: where does a President and his Justice Department toadies get the arrogance to ignore their oaths of office?  That has already been answered by St. George Tucker, an early expositor of the Constitution [1] in a series of essays published in 1803:

Lastly; it is the duty of the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and, in the words of his oath, “to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.”

The obligation of oaths upon the consciences of ambitious men has always been very slight, as the general history of mankind but too clearly evinces.  Among the Romans, indeed, they were held in great sanctity during the purer ages of the republic, but began to be disregarded as the nation approached to a state of debasement, that fitted them for slavery.  Among Christian princes, they seem only to have been calculated for the worst, instead of the best purposes: monarchs having long exercised, and seeming to claim, not less than the successors of St. Peter, a kind of dispensing power on this subject, in all cases affecting themselves.  A due sense of religion must not only be wanting in such cases, but the moral character of the man must be wholly debased, and corrupted.  Whilst these remain unsullied, in the United States, oaths may operate in support of the constitution they have adopted, but no longer.  After that period an oath of office will serve merely to designate its duties, and not to secure the faithful performance of them; or, to restrain those who are disposed to violate them.

Why does this kind of arrogance prevail?  Because the officers of the government have adopted corruption and immorality as their mode of operation: what matters to them is the political expediency of the moment without regard for what is right, wrong, or important in the long term.  It is not actually a legal matter: no court ruling will affect the basic corruption.  Left unchecked, this level of corruption will eventually cause the republic to degenerate into tyranny.  Montesquieu [2] notes:

When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

We can only hope that the American people will be more discerning at the next presidential election.

[1] St. George Tucker, A View of the Constitution of the United States, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, p. 282, (1999).  The original was published in 1803.

[2] Charles de Secondat, (Baron de Montesquieu), The Spirit of Laws, Book VIII, chapter 12.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Regarding Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Regarding Obamas Immigration Executive Action   <– PDF version

The President issued an Executive Action on 21 Nov 2014 regarding the enforcement of the immigration laws.  It amounts to deferring deportation for about five million illegal aliens if they meet two criteria: a) must have been in the U. S. for five years; and b) must have children who are citizens by birth or naturalization. The alleged rationale for this action deferring deportation is that Congress has refused to act in the interest of keeping families (some members of which are here illegally) together.  His other claims about the action are that eligible illegal aliens: a) must register with the federal government; b) must be fingerprinted and undergo a criminal background check at their own expense; c) are not eligible for any public benefits; and d) must pay income taxes upon successfully completing the background check and receiving a work permit.  Also, he claimed that more resources will be devoted to securing the border and deporting felons.  This being an executive action, it expires when the President leaves office.  (I am being charitable by assuming this delusional narcissist will leave office voluntarily on 20 Jan 2017; don’t be surprised if he claims a third term because it would have been the will of the people who don’t vote in 2016.)

Every candid observer must agree, given his conduct over the past six years, that Barack Obama is a pathological liar.  Aside from that, consider this action from the standpoint of the illegal alien.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to register with the government so that the government will know who they are and where they are when the executive action expires.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to pay for a background check and processing fees that he has never had to pay before.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that an illegal alien is going to volunteer to now pay taxes he has not been liable for all these years.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that the illegal aliens receiving public welfare benefits will give them up.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron who thinks that border or visa enforcement will actually occur under this administration.  Raise your hand if you’re a moron and you believe that the federal government will deport felons.  All of Obama’s claims are false as usual: there will be no fees, no registration, no background checks, no payment of taxes, no reduction of welfare rolls, no border enforcement, and no deportation of anyone, felon or not.

It is worse than that.  The Republicans do not have many options for stopping the implementation of this action, since it is difficult legislatively to force a President to actually do his job.  They will whimper a lot, but won’t do much about it.  Secondly, a sizeable fraction of Republicans (led by Senator John McCain) want all the illegal aliens made citizens on the grounds that it is the path of lesser resistance compared to actually securing the border and enforcing the visa limitations.  It will also show that the Republicans are just as willing as Democrats to hand our national sovereignty over to foreign-national trespassers, which (they hope) will cause many Hispanic people to vote for Republicans.

It is likely that the President will get away with deferring deportation for these five million, so what is to stop Barack “I lied, period” Obama from granting all illegal aliens permanent residency six months from now?  What will stop him from granting all 30 million illegal aliens automatic citizenship a year from now?  We should expect that this is only the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Regarding the Michael Brown case

RegardingTheMichaelBrownCase   <– PDF version

Mr. Michael Brown was shot to death by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson on the afternoon of Saturday, 9 Aug 2014.  Some of the details that have become public knowledge include:

a. Wilson first “contacted” Mr. Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson while they were walking in the street.

b. There was some sort of confrontation between Brown and Wilson, part of which occurred inside Wilson’s patrol car.

c. At least one shot was fired inside the car.

d. Brown was shot at least six times and died at the scene.

e. Johnson was never shot at, nor injured in the incident, nor was he subsequently arrested.

There are two conflicting narratives as to the sequence of events.  Both versions agree that there was a confrontation inside the patrol car, but differ as to the cause.  Some claim Wilson pulled Brown in, or slammed a door on Brown provoking an attack by Brown. Wilson’s version is that Brown simply attacked him while Wilson was still in the car and the shot was fired while Brown was trying to take Wilson’s gun.  The second area of dispute is whether Mr. Brown was shot in the back as he tried to run away, or was shot from the front as he tried to surrender to Wilson with his hands up; or had initially tried to run, but then turned and charged Wilson.  Mr. Johnson has claimed Brown was trying to surrender and Wilson has claimed Brown was charging him.  There were several eyewitnesses to the incident besides Wilson and Johnson; some corroborate Wilson’s version and other’s defending Johnson’s version.  There have been three autopsies on Brown’s body, but none of them (as far as we know) are conclusive as to whether Brown was shot from the front or back.

Because Brown is black and Wilson is white, naturally the shooting attracted the attention of outside race-baiters and agitators, resulting in a prolonged period of nightly looting and rioting near the scene.  Federal race-baiters including Attorney General Eric “Justice is political” Holder and President Barack “I lied, period” Obama also commented on the case, as usual without any knowledge thereof.  The Ferguson police department handed control of security to the St. Louis County police department, but failing in their efforts, the National Guard was called in by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.  The rioting and demonstrations finally ended when a grand jury was convened on 20 Aug to investigate the incident and make a determination as to whether Wilson should be charged with a crime.  At this writing, the grand jury has not issued its findings, although it is expected shortly.

There are some other peculiarities in this case.  First, Mr. Johnson admitted in the week after the shooting that he and Mr. Brown were in fact involved in a robbery (caught on videotape) of a local convenience store minutes before the confrontation with Wilson.  It is not clear (as there is conflicting evidence) if Officer Wilson was aware of the robbery or the description of the men.  So, we do not know yet whether the contact between Wilson and Brown/Johnson was precipitated because they were suspects in the robbery, or if it was because they were walking in the street.  Secondly, Officer Wilson’s identity was not released until 11 Aug, ostensibly in the interest of his and the public’s safety.

One of the disturbing things about this case is that Wilson was treated differently than any other person.  If Wilson had been a regular citizen, even with the chain of events as he described them, he would have been immediately arrested and charged with capital murder and his identity released.  But because Wilson is a government employee, his identity was kept secret until practically forced from the Department, and he was merely placed on paid administrative leave pending a grand jury investigation.  This is probably the greatest long-term facet of this case: the extent to which government employees are given preferential treatment compared to non-government employees involved in similar incidents.  If we are to preserve liberty, it is essential that all come under the same law, government and non-government alike.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Islamic State Practices True Islam

The Islamic State Practices True Islam  <– PDF version

We have all heard of the atrocities currently being committed by the Islamic State (IS), also called the Islamic State in Iraq (ISIS) — starving of children, mass murders, forcing people into the wilderness by the thousands, summary executions of enemy soldiers, public beheadings of Arab children and Western journalists, etc.  IS has demanded that all within the territory they control who are not with them is against them.  Their demands are simple: convert, pay tribute to IS, or be killed.  President Barack “I lied, period” Obama has responded by authorizing a limited series of airstrikes against ISIS, motivated mostly by public opinion than coherent policy.  Allegedly, the U. S. is being assisted by a few Arab nations (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan) in conducting these air missions.  The military experts inform us that this is neither a rational nor a victory-oriented strategy, but never mind that, Mr. Obama can now convincingly emulate President George W. Bush as a warrior upon “radical Islam”.  Both presidents have said that they believe Islam is a religion of peace, and that no true religion would conduct itself the way IS has done.  They are both wrong: Islam is the religion of peace only when they are in a tiny minority; as soon as they become a large minority or a majority, the true nature of Islam comes out: to spread the faith by force.

As proof, we need look no further than the policy of Abu Bekr, the first elected Caliph after the death of the Prophet Mohammed; he served as Caliph from the death of Mohammed in 632 until his assassination by poisoning in 634.  Abu Bekr was the father of Mohammed’s favorite wife, and was elected over Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali and an early dutiful convert, Omar.  The historian Henry Coppee has furnished us with the transition from Mohammed to Abu Bekr [1]:

“The venerable chief entered at once and with ardor upon the plans proposed by Mohammed.  He summoned the nation to arms, and after some desultory, or rather experimental efforts, he dispatched a large force to wrest Syria from the weak grasp of Heraclius.  His troops were full of ardor; the new war which was undertaken to propagate the faith would also enrich the faithful, by securing, as a result of victory, the costly spoils of the Lower Empire, of which the marvelous accounts hardly exceeded the marvelous reality.”

He followed the dictates of the Koran as laid out by the Prophet Mohammed [2]:

“If you be slain or die in defense of the religion of God, verily, pardon from God and mercy are better that what they heap together of worldly riches; and if you die or be slain, verily, unto God you shall be gathered.”

Here are Abu Bekr’s instructions to the army [3]:

“If God should give you the victory, do not abuse your advantages; and beware how you stain your swords in the blood of him who yields; neither touch the children, the women, or the infirm old men, that you may find among your enemies.  In your progress through the enemy’s lands, cut down no palms, or fruit trees, destroy not the products of the earth; ravage no fields; burn no dwellings; from the stores of your enemy, take only what you need for your own wants.  Let no destruction be made without necessity, but occupy the cities of the enemy, and if there be any that may serve as an asylum to your adversaries, them do you destroy.  Treat the prisoner, and him who renders himself to your mercy, with pity, as God shall do to you in your need, but trample down the proud and rebellious; nor fail to crush all who have broken the conditions imposed on them.  Let there be no perfidy or falsehood in your treaties with your enemies; be faithful in all things, proving yourselves upright and noble, and maintaining your word and promise truly.  Do not disturb the quiet of the monk or hermit, and destroy not their abodes, but inflict the rigors of death on all who shall refuse the conditions you would impose on them.”

What were these conditions?  Very simple, identical to what the new IS has proclaimed: “convert to Islam, pay tribute, or die by the sword.”

The new Islamic State, led by Abu Bekr al-Baghdadi (pseudonym or coincidence?), is in fact practicing the true form of Islam and spreading it in the way authorized by Mohammed and the successor caliphs.  This explains why every nation with a large Islamic population requires a government of tyranny and dictatorship: first, individual freedom is prohibited by Islam; and secondly, without a government of absolute powers, the nation would degenerate into perpetual chaos.  It is exactly as we have seen in Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Iraq in recent years as soon as the secular dictators and absolute monarchs were overthrown or challenged.  It is a way of life in the weakly-governed Islamic portions of the Philippines, Sudan, and Somalia.  Why would our government try to deceive us into believing that Islam is a “religion of peace”?  Are they naive and gullible, or something worse?

[1]  Henry Coppee, The History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, Vol. 1, p. 44,  Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1881

[2]  The Koran, chap. 3.

[3]  ibid., Coppee, Vol. 1, pp. 46, 47

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in terrorism, war powers | No Comments »