Iowa's Des Moines Register vs President Trump, U.S. Constitution
On September 8, Iowa's largest newspaper, the Gannett-owned Des Moines Register, effectively entreated that readers of its editorial page rally to criminality's defense.
"Iowa DACA advocate asks: Will we fight for her American dream?" detailed the plight of one Iowa Dreamer.
Despite its author's hand-wringing pretension, the ugly editorial was, in honesty, just the paper's latest vehicle for its indiscriminate, scorched-Earth attack on President Trump and his 60 million + supporters. Long a blue state, Iowa in 2016 turned red, soundly endorsing Trump. Fortunately, the anti-Trump howling that the Register had maintained throughout the campaign proved feckless.
Certainly, many good noncitizens impacted have compelling back stories, and their circumstances deserve solicitous attention. Compassion and regard for national unity despite cultural differences are praiseworthy American attributes.
But, regard for traditional Constitutional principles and democratically-established citizenship standards also must be respected. They are not somehow in competition with wholly legitimate concern for others' well being.
In fact, without a solid legal foundation, no civilized society can guarantee stable compassion to anyone. Today's promises may tomorrow be swept to the curb.
With his DACA proclamation, Obama toyed with the welfare of some 800,000 non-citizens for the sake of contemporary partisan advantage -- in the same moment, admitting his just-coined edict's insubstantiality. He knew fully well the flimsiness and impermanence of his stunt.
Prior to issuing DACA, Obama had conceded (on more than 20 occasions) that setting immigration policy was not within his office's authority, "I'm the President of the United States," he once stressed. "Not the Emperor of the United States."
Indeed, the Constitution does reserve law-making power to the Congressional Branch, not to the Executive one. In ending DACA -- which Obama had, himself, called "temporary," and whose Constitutional validity the former president admitted was nonexistent -- President Trump is upholding the Constitution's explicit assignment of authorities.
Apologists for illegals' noncompliance with existing laws often reply that "the system is broken," and list changes they'd desire. But that's a different conversation. Changes might one day be made. But, what justifies someone disobeying laws that already exist, today? And, what precedent is set by their defiance of currently enacted statutes? Why wouldn't someone be able to break tomorrow's law? Should each person only obey statutes that are to their liking?
The anonymous Register editorialist breezed without care beyond the patent unconstitutionality of Obama's DACA edict, assigning blame, instead, to President Trump. The paper blamed him for rightly returning responsibility to Congress. Properly, though, blame belongs to the preceding president; it was he who had splashed foolishly and in contempt of persons looking for reliable human kindness, It is Obama's after-mess that Trump and Congress must now clean up.
In keeping with the American Constitution, of course -- Register editors' hatefulness being of no practical significance. Once again.
On September 8, Iowa's largest newspaper, the Gannett-owned Des Moines Register, effectively entreated that readers of its editorial page rally to criminality's defense.
"Iowa DACA advocate asks: Will we fight for her American dream?" detailed the plight of one Iowa Dreamer.
Despite its author's hand-wringing pretension, the ugly editorial was, in honesty, just the paper's latest vehicle for its indiscriminate, scorched-Earth attack on President Trump and his 60 million + supporters. Long a blue state, Iowa in 2016 turned red, soundly endorsing Trump. Fortunately, the anti-Trump howling that the Register had maintained throughout the campaign proved feckless.
Certainly, many good noncitizens impacted have compelling back stories, and their circumstances deserve solicitous attention. Compassion and regard for national unity despite cultural differences are praiseworthy American attributes.
But, regard for traditional Constitutional principles and democratically-established citizenship standards also must be respected. They are not somehow in competition with wholly legitimate concern for others' well being.
In fact, without a solid legal foundation, no civilized society can guarantee stable compassion to anyone. Today's promises may tomorrow be swept to the curb.
With his DACA proclamation, Obama toyed with the welfare of some 800,000 non-citizens for the sake of contemporary partisan advantage -- in the same moment, admitting his just-coined edict's insubstantiality. He knew fully well the flimsiness and impermanence of his stunt.
Prior to issuing DACA, Obama had conceded (on more than 20 occasions) that setting immigration policy was not within his office's authority, "I'm the President of the United States," he once stressed. "Not the Emperor of the United States."
Indeed, the Constitution does reserve law-making power to the Congressional Branch, not to the Executive one. In ending DACA -- which Obama had, himself, called "temporary," and whose Constitutional validity the former president admitted was nonexistent -- President Trump is upholding the Constitution's explicit assignment of authorities.
Apologists for illegals' noncompliance with existing laws often reply that "the system is broken," and list changes they'd desire. But that's a different conversation. Changes might one day be made. But, what justifies someone disobeying laws that already exist, today? And, what precedent is set by their defiance of currently enacted statutes? Why wouldn't someone be able to break tomorrow's law? Should each person only obey statutes that are to their liking?
The anonymous Register editorialist breezed without care beyond the patent unconstitutionality of Obama's DACA edict, assigning blame, instead, to President Trump. The paper blamed him for rightly returning responsibility to Congress. Properly, though, blame belongs to the preceding president; it was he who had splashed foolishly and in contempt of persons looking for reliable human kindness, It is Obama's after-mess that Trump and Congress must now clean up.
In keeping with the American Constitution, of course -- Register editors' hatefulness being of no practical significance. Once again.
posted by DC Larson at
September 08, 2017
1 Comments:
I have great empathy for the DACA youths. Shame on their parents for putting them in this position! And why the Dream Act and DACA conflated in the media as if the same thing? Further: besides false credentials and statements on welfare/job/college apps, how many 18+ DACAs vote? (Another federal violation.) Existing law cannot be ignored because you "don't like it."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home