On Preemption: If the Feds in fact were taking effective action meant to reduce the problem and danger of illegal border jumping, their preemption argument would be more compelling. But the feds, under this regime, are not. Moreover, it is obvious that the policy of this regime is that they deliberately are not. They cannot very well complain that Arizona's efforts are hindering theirs, when they are, if anything, standing in the way of, or at least doing all they can do to slow, border enforcement.
Given this state of affairs, and given that having a country and a constitution become of vanishing meaningfulness to the extent the federal executive is unwilling to defend them, and given that the federal apparatus is in fact doing much that, if anything, is calculated to attract illegal border jumping (as by conferring medical care, anchor citizenship, lenient bail procedures, and extremely lax enforcement methods), what then becomes of any validity to the preemption argument?
Consider the result were a president to show himself to be a tyrant, aided and abetted by a corrupt syndicate of media, who was bent on deceiving the country and in fact leveling it to become more in common with an impoverished new world order of serfs: Then, must the judiciary sit on its hands and leave the fate of the country to Congress and its choice about whether to impeach? Well, what then if Congress itself has become comprised of Progressives (aka, "Communists without principles")? Must the judiciary still accede to executive preemption? Well, in what part of the Constitution, and in what legislation, have the executive and its functionaries been given preemptive and sole power to decide whether or not the very country, its borders, and its Constitution shall be defended?
Can the judiciary fashion a principled doctrine that will limit the doctrine of preemption when it is wielded by what appears more and more obviously every day to be an unprincipled regime that trumps every principle of decency under the goal of leveling the middle class and spreading its wealth so that the rule of a few "more equal" elites shall go unimpeded?
May it be relevant, in the regime's suit against Arizona, to consider evidence of the disloyalty and sedition of the regime? IOW, that the federal executive has no intention to defend the border?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Obama is "not trying to destroy America" in the same way that a General who put priority on his troops' shining of the insides of their belt buckles would "not be trying to lose a battle." If neither is trying to destroy, then neither is either trying to save. The genius of America, more so than for any other country, has always been in unleashing the creative initiative of Americans. Obama, instead of unleashing American creativity, seeks to force, micromanage, and collectivize it. Obama is trying to superimpose the collectivist solutions that he and his minions think to be best ... or most conducive to a corporatist, fascist, comprehensive, final solution. So far, there don't seem to be many success stories for the masses in that approach. BTW - that approach, i.e., herding Americans under collectivist control, certainly will destroy what most fundamentally is America, i.e., her capacity for unleashing creativity. So what is it, which is coloring the thinking of O'Reilly and Medved!?
Ordinary people tend to feel disgraced and scandalized when they are caught lying. They may lie and then breathe easier once they get away with it. Obama, however, when he lies to hurt America or to advance Marxism or Islam, seems to want to get caught, as soon after as he achieves his immediate goal -- so he can laugh at us.
Even as he laughs, he continues the deceit. "What, you don't believe that, do you? That happened when I was only eight." Etc. What he is telling those who can think is this: "I know you're onto me. But it doesn’t matter. My movement controls the thoughts of the 50 percent of the population that are hopelessly gullible. And there's nothing you can do about it."
He laughs in this way because he believes such taunts serve to demoralize. Eventually, people come to think there is no hope in resisting insanity, brutality, cynical-god-fascism, and thug rule. Eventually, many people figure they may as well join with the thugs and Allah bombers and get theirs while the getting's good. To hope to defeat this, one needs to have faith that something better actually abides. But we beat down that kind of faith a little more every day. "Science," you know.
Obama is proudest when he is caught lying after he has gained his ends and while his base will never believe it. Were he only a 15 year old robber, he should be tried as an adult -- unrepentant and incorrigible. But the responsible adults of the world are surrounded by thug children in the bodies of adults. What we have here is The Lord of the Flies, upside down. The children now power the technology.
A collectivizing bureaucracy grinds souls down, regardless of race, sex, or creed. People become less than they should be and lose the will to stand up individually for any values. Instead, they put fingers to the wind and wait for opportune breezes. As they ride a breeze, they become happy faces on sticks, unwilling to buck the current. The most successful tend to be those who become one with the growing movement, reducing themselves to become accomplices of impersonal evil as movements begin to contend, for not much more reason than to test which shall replace the prevailing system. Individual responsibility is lost; individuals become moral irrelevancies. The goal of those who bet on becoming abettors of collectivist systems and syndicates is to disintegrate all vestiges of an independent-minded middle class. To allow independent-minded people to be leveled in this way is to reduce moral responsibility to a quaint notion. The proper war is not against divisive racism, which is part and parcel of collectivist rule. The proper war is to restore individual dignity by reducing collectivist rule. Without dignity, we are all reduced – regardless of stripes. The thing I most admired about MLK was the way he carried himself -- his dignity.
Regarding Hayak and God --
Look at this: http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46: “In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people. »
…
« What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. »
I agree with much of the above. But I do not agree with the following (which seems silly, upon considering the need to protect minors):
« … to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion. »
I’m not confident Hayek gave full consideration to just how corrosive tolerating libertine behavior has become to Western Civilization. For goodness sakes, look at California, Los Angeles County, and NYC (before Giuliani and his “broken windows” law enforcement philosophy).
Then there was this: “Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. »
You know, the more I read of this article by Hayak, the more I think he was not that much of a fortune teller. For the life of me, I see no sane reason why we should not be hostile to deceptive, violent, and undermining intrusions from the Islamic and Communist parts of the world ! Why we « should » trade with and enrich corrupt societies to such an extent that they can eventually corrupt and bribe our politicians with our own tax money boggles my mind. While I admire Hayak’s prescience in The Road to Serfdom, his article about why he was not a conservative begins to seem not as prescient.
IMO, the rub comes when Libertines try to tax state power and regulation in ways that severely constrict individual freedom of speech to communicate about spiritual values based on philosophical intuitions that support decent regard for sustainable, family-friendly values in respect of God.
An “American Conservative”, being a conserver of American style individualism and liberty, may be what, in our classical years, was called a Liberal. An American Conservative is not merely a religiously based stick in the mud against change. Rather, an American Conservative tends to be for individual and social change, especially where decently effective for reducing the role of collectivist regulation. Indeed, reasonable change cannot very well be resisted. Were our evolution to become such that our grasp ever caught our reach, God would, in otherwise boredom, simply extend our reach. That is, God’s forte may be less about being a trickster than an adventurer.
Even so, in all of this change, there should be high suspicion against undue governmental intrusiveness. This is why a “conserver” of regulations that are unnecessary and unreasonable is less like an American Conservative (or Classical Liberal) and more like a fascist Socialist (or Collectivist). This is why modern “Liberalism” is more like Liberal Fascism. This is why modern “Progressives” who would unnecessarily permit or rely on the force of government can hardly be distinguished from Communists.
This is also why there are as many Christians who love fascism as love liberty; it‘s why merely being broadly “Christian” does not define one’s politics. Merely entertaining the belief system of a Christian will not make one an American Conservative. Faux conservatives, thinking themselves to be “evangelical progressives,” may come to deceive themselves or even to run roughshod over others. But I do not believe Jesus came to enlist the armies of Caesar. Compare http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46.
The “marketplace of economic forces” is not entirely “natural.” Rather, its direction is also affected subjectively, by conceptualizations of trend leaders. In other words, the consciousness of the marketplace is often raised artificially (“raising consciousness”). Sometimes the conceptualizations are wisely designed; sometimes they are fired blindly. Indeed, even to idealize and communicate a name for a new thing within the marketplace is already to give it a kind of self-promoting value. That is, the marketplace of the physically desired evolves in synchronicity with the marketplace of the spiritually idealized.
An American Conservative tends to favor the kind of decent change that comes with unleashing individual initiative, but to disfavor the kind of stifling change that comes from corralling people into regulated collectives. A “Social Conservative” will be an “American Conservative” only to the extent he/she prefers that opportunity for inspiring social values is availed in respect of social mores as opposed to governmental regulations.
Post a Comment