Setting aside completely the moral or ethical issues that may compel someone to grant young illegal immigrants immunity, and even allow them to work in the US without hindrance, the approach that Obama has taken to bring it about is, to put it bluntly, the death rattle of the Republic. This article in the Politico goes over some of the other examples in the Obama administration of open defiance of the law, which, if I recall correctly, Obama (and others… ie, Holder) swore to uphold in his inaugural oath.
I am reminded of the words of Abraham Lincoln, who, if I again recall correctly, was in mind during Obama’s inauguration.
When, I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay, but till then let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.
This is in Lincoln’s letter in opposition to ‘mob rule,’ and it seems fitting to me to apply the essay to Obama and modern liberalism, which is the epitome, I think, of exactly that: ‘mob rule.’
By once again skirting the rule of law in doing by executive order what everyone knows is properly done by Congress, Obama heaps has engaged in a modern sort of lynching; instead of runaway slaves or wayward gamblers, the Republic itself is strung up. The Republic can only survive if the rule of law is upheld.
Now, the rule of law distills ultimately to the US Constitution and its faithful application by our public ‘servants’, and seen in these terms we must admit immediately that the rule of law has virtually disappeared in our country, except in the abstract. We can look at Roe vs. Wade, where ‘Constitutional’ principles were invented out of thin air, as one great example, but there have been many. Importantly, Republicans have gone along with these abuses and contortions as easily as Democrats have: the Constitution means whatever 9 folks in robes say it means, regardless of what the plain reading of the document suggests.
The Constitution should mean exactly what it clearly means, no more, and no less; the ability to determine this can usually be secured by 12th grade, even in America’s educational system. Granted, it isn’t always as simple as that, but more often than not, it is. The integrity of the rule of the law flows downward from the US Constitution, and where stuff is added and ignored over the years, or ridiculous interpretations of the text is allowed to stand as ‘Constitutional’, where even a child could see something is decidedly not Constitutional, that integrity is badly strained, to say the least.
But the other aspect I referred to was the ‘faithful application.’ For example, in a society that honored the rule of law, Congress would not pass a law that they knew or suspected was unconstitutional. Of course, there is a way around this: pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices who will declare your unconstitutional law constitutional, and viola! Constitutional. But that is not what I’m getting at here. What I’m referring to is the inability or refusal of our politicians… and many of our citizens… to be bound by the words on the paper.
If someone cared about the ‘rule of law’, and they wanted to do something that was presently unconstitutional, they would suck it up and deal with it and work to make it constitutional. Prohibition being a case in point; but that was a different day, when there was still some respect for the ‘rule of law.’ Today, you just do what you want to do and try to get 9 men in black robes to sign off on it. But a time is coming when even getting SCOTUS to give some cover to the government’s action isn’t needed. Already, liberal democrats, and the Obama administration, have been doing things subversively that the court has already spoken on–or against. For example, the contraception mandate applied to religious institutions that object.
Personally, I believe that the seeds of this trend began many years ago, even more than a hundred years ago, and in a place you may not expect. When the Christian Scriptures were undercut, marginalized, and dismissed, so too was the general approach of the populace of being constrained by ‘words on the paper.’ The rule of law absolutely depends on this ability.
If the Scriptures say “Thou shalt not Steal” one way to get around it is to run circles around the phrases ‘thou’ and ‘shalt’ and ‘not’ and ‘steal,’ re-defining them and rationalizing them and turning them on their heads so that you could with good conscience steal something. The other way around it is to just ignore the words altogether and just take what you want.
The ‘faithful application’ requires that the person has the ability, capacity, and willingness to allow their actions to be checked by words on the paper. When the Christian Scriptures went, and secular humanism rose, along with secular humanism came the idea of ‘man the only measure of all things.’ And what is a ‘word’ but a social construct? And can’t social constructs change? Case in point: ‘gay’ ‘marriage.’
“The word ‘marriage’ has explicitly referred to a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years.” “So what? The meaning of words change all of the time.”
Here is an example of the conflict between reality as it really is and the secular humanistic trend to view words as unreal and malleable, combined, of course, with their contempt for things they deem ‘religious.’ But there is nothing specially religious about the observation that procreation requires ONE man and ONE woman, and that without this unique arrangement and requirement, there WOULD BE NO HUMAN RACE. ‘Gay marriage’ proponents can change words all they want but the underlying reality does not change, just because the meanings of the words previously employed to describe those realities change.
So, stealing will still be stealing and murder will still be murder and the one man-one woman union will still be something notably distinct from other human relationships, even if some other word must be now employed because the liberals took away the word ‘marriage.’ In fact, I did just employ another ‘word’: ‘one man-one woman.’ In thirty years, liberals will have decided that even the words ‘one’ and ‘man’ and ‘woman’ don’t mean what they have always meant, and I will have to expand the description to a full paragraph, when previously I could cover the concept in a single word.
But that’s a digression. I am trying to illustrate that reality stays the same even if the words shift around from one generation to the next. Trying to justify why we won’t be bound by words on the paper on this basis fails because reality doesn’t change by shaking our finger at it, or closing our eyes and wishing it were something else. I don’t know why I bother saying all this; perhaps it is in the vain hope that someone will read this and see in themselves their insanity, and change their minds. Obviously, the people I am describing have difficulty with words, so they are as likely to read this and come away with the reaction “What does he have against English swallows?” as anything else.
This is really for the rest of us, those who uphold the ‘rule of law’ and wonder how it is that the Republic has managed to move so far away from it in so many cases. It isn’t, as many conservatives think, simply because moderns have moved away from the Christian values that drove the founding of the nation. It was largely because our leaders and the masses stopped seeing words as rooted in anything concrete and consequently refusing to be bound by them–which is something that Christians are continually trained in by virtue of their faith in God as revealed by the Scriptures. Take away that training on a large scale, and you are seeing the result.
Now that this is seen, what can be done about it?
Not a thing. Stick a fork in America, she’s done. The only thing that can save it (from herself) is a full supping of the fruits of the consequences of this ‘mobocratic’ approach to living together in society. The best thing we can do is try to protect and preserve our families so that when the end comes, our children or grandchildren can stand up and re-build the country. Unless they do so understanding how it came to cease in the first place, this, too, will be for naught.
But if that is too pessimistic of an outlook for you, I leave you with an extended excerpt from Lincoln’s essay on ‘mob rule.’ It has some practical advice that perhaps may be worth a look. It is, at least, interesting to read in light of modern events.
While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquillity, who desire to abide by the laws and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country, seeing their property destroyed, their families insulted, and their lives endangered, their persons injured, and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better, become tired of and disgusted with a government that offers them no protection, and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose.
Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit which all must admit is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed–I mean the attachment of the people.
Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure and with impunity, depend on it, this government cannot last. By such things the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it, and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak to make their friendship effectual. At such a time, and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric which for the last half century has been the fondest hope of the lovers of freedom throughout the world.
I know the American people are much attached to their government; I know they would suffer much for its sake; I know they would endure evils long and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it for another,–yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.
Here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
The question recurs, How shall we fortify against it? The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
While ever a state of feeling such as this shall universally or even very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.