Saturday, June 16, 2012

Obama Suspends The Constitution. Reporters Have No Questions.

John Yoo, on Obama's decision to suspend enforcement of America's immigration law:

When presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR said that they would not enforce a law, they did so when the law violated their executive powers under the Constitution or the individual rights of citizens.

The president’s right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional legislation, of course, does not apply here.

So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.

Victor Davis Hanson on the revolutionary (not in a good way) nature of Obama's announcement yesterday:

If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do?

When you collate this recent act with the class-warfare rhetoric, the “punish our enemies” threats, the president’s and Eric Holder’s serial racialist statements, the huge borrowing, the national-security leaks, the takeover of health care, the push for redistributive taxes, and even the trivial appointments like a Van Jones, Anita Dunn, or Armendariz, you can fairly conclude that Obama most certainly did not like the way the United States operated for the last 30 or so years, and has tried his best, through hook or crook, to change America in ways that simply were not possible through legislative or even judicial action. Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare.

Great choice of words.  And when Obama, with a triumphant sneer, ripped up the Constitution before a select group of witnesses - picked for their alleged impartiality but all known to be devotees of the president's agenda - they all abandoned the pledge of their profession. None of them said a word.

Except for Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro, who shouted a question - perhaps not even the appropriate one - at the president, who didn't take kindly to anyone actually picking up said gauntlet:

Munro yelled, "Why'd you favor foreigners over Americans?”
“Excuse me, sir. It’s not time for questions," Obama said.
"No, you have to take questions,” Munro said.
“Not while I’m speaking.” Obama said.

A few seconds later:

 “And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I’d prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people,” Obama said, before Munro shouted out again. The president added: “I didn’t ask for an argument. I’m answering your question.”

One can't argue an indefensible position.  The president knew that, and so did the assembled media, who obligingly sat dumb.

One man did not, and he is now being cast as the villain, for daring to point out the emperor had no clothes.

When the history of this dark moment is written, Munro will be recast as the hero.  The only man willing to stand up and shout as he saw the law of the land being erased from existence.

We can use more men like Neil Munro.  But alas for us, there are precious few on the horizon...

No comments: