Posted on 11/22/2014 11:01:16 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
One of the ideas that plunged America into the bloody Civil War was the belief that federal laws could be nullified by those who disagree with them. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was a chief proponent of the doctrine that Southern states could nullify federal laws if states disagreed with them. In announcing a lawless amnesty edict tonight, President Obama is our modern John C. Calhoun.
Elementary school civics class has taught the same thing for two hundred years: Congress makes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws. The reason this is so is because individual liberty thrives when government is hobbled by division of power. People live better lives when federal power is stymied.
When President Obama announces that he will be suspending laws to bless the illegal presence of millions of foreigners in the United States, he will have adopted the most basic philosophy of John C. Calhoun: some laws can be tossed aside because his ends justify the lawlessness.
Make no mistake about why Obama wants millions of foreigners to remain in the United States. He told us exactly why in 2008: he aims to “fundamentally transform” America.
One way to transform America is to import populations with cultural and legal traditions foreign to American traditions. Central and South America has a cultural tradition of instability in government, of graft, corruption, and civil strife. People from those countries bring an expectation that the systems are rigged against them, because oftentimes they are.
Obama wants to transform America by transforming who Americans are. Even if these millions are not granted the right to vote (immediately), their children, yet unborn, will be granted it by virtue of being natural-born citizens. Obama is playing the long game.
Obama learned the history of the 20th century: when radical statists take power quickly, openly, and brazenly, Americans will stand in the breach. Whether on the blazing beaches of Saipan, in the Ardennes snow, or in dark alleys in Bucharest, Americans will risk it all. But Americans are less familiar with a slow-moving threat to American values. The long game isn’t as recognizable to us.
The long game is what Putin plays in Eastern Europe, what radical Islam plays everywhere, and what Obama now plays domestically with amnesty. Obama just had to reach back and borrow some ideas from one of the most vociferous defenders of Southern slavery, and nullify laws he took an oath to enforce.
Take some comfort in this: executives acting lawlessly is a transgression as old as human history. Charles I similarly ignored the law when he went so far as to dissolve a Parliament with which he disagreed. When he started running out of money to conduct his wars with France and Spain, he violated Magna Carta by imposing a forced loan on the monarchs without the consent of Parliament.
Magna Carta will be eight hundred years old next year. It stands for the principle that the executive is limited by the law. Kings, emperors, and now presidents have stood against the principles of Magna Carta. Tonight, Obama will add his name to the long list of consequentialists such as John C. Calhoun and Charles I who brazenly ignore laws to achieve their ends.
What will be the Republican response? Is the risk of a government shutdown more dangerous than a transformed America? Will the GOP recognize the dangerous line Obama has crossed, or will they channel Millard Fillmore in response to our modern Calhoun? Will they use the powers the Founders gave them to reign in executive lawlessness, or will they meekly punt the problem to the courts?
The future of much more than immigration policy is at stake.
John C. Calhoun was an amazing statesmen the President isn’t even good enough to lick his shoes.
No. John C. was an advocate for states rights. Obummer is an advocate of himself......
Whats it called when you bring a foreign and hostile group into the country, with the intent of getting rid of the native population?
Hint: starts with a capitol T.
“No. John C. was an advocate for states rights. Obummer is an advocate of himself......”
Exactly !
I am sure the author meant,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xhlofyvIXE
The rats tossed southern white men aside in the 1960s. Today, having used up the blacks, blacks are to be thrown under the bus and replaced with millions of barbarian invaders. It is 410 AD all over again.
Yes! Calhoun=patriot, hero, advocate for self-government. Obama=dictator.
(I thought I heard Levin agree with this writer’s point. I can’t say for sure, because I couldn’t believe my ears.)
Levin cites it, but I’m still not believing he agreed with it. http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=November+20%2C+2014&id=11981&is_corp=0
Perfect summation.
Calhoun could hardly be fairly labeled a proponent of lawlessness, or as an enemy of the federal Constitution. Even his opponents in Washington wouldn't have gone so far. What we have with this present Executive, on the other hand, is no Lincoln. He is, in fact, an enemy of American nationalism, and his enemy is already a weakened, if not a completely paper tiger by this point.
Among the most profound weaknesses of our Union, perhaps since the beginning of the 20th century - though the weakness was already weaved into our "composite republic," as Madison himself described it - is this short-term focus. Meant as another check against excesses, the workaround has been the creation of a civil service curia, Washington itself, now the victim of the tendency of all institutions to suppliant reason-for-being functions with self-continuity functions, until the latter become he former.
Personally, though I've heard it mentioned thus far from only one corner, I'm of a mind to push Article V. The clear and present danger calls for a Constitutional Convention. A credible threat alone could, well, actually I'm quite sure it would, block the excesses of the Executive and perhaps - in the long run - achieve needed adjustments to our course, preserve the Constitution and the Union, perhaps even the culture, long after this Executive is past tense.
Excellent post.
Agree that Article V is the way to go.
I’m starting to suspect, however, that once something like the Liberty Amendments are in place, or if they’re derailed by leftist chicanery, that secession will be dusted off as a viable option.
If an Article V fails, we need to get our minds wrapped around the concept of two or more sovereign red and blue American nations, and pray the break with our brothers and sisters is done peacefully.
I understand the concept but when in history has such a divide happened peaceably? I don't even know how secession could even start in this day and age. The government is so invasive that they will nip it in the bud before it really can take hold.
I have thought about it a lot but can not envision a scenario of how it could happen.
Thoughts?
More like Algonquin J. Calhoun.
Yes, the “peaceably” part would need prayer.
I agree with you about the Feds never allowing it. Which is why I’m also thinking an Article V might be stopped by them or subverted. It’s a ways down the road. I’m just looking past Article V, maybe two generations away.
But because the Constitutional crisis is very near, we must think beyond Boehner.
Another wild card is how states will handle the unsustainable financial system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.