Published: Sunday, July 28 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
The examples you cite for the abrogation of the rule of law pale in comparison
to the decision to invade Iraq, a violation of both the war making powers
domestically and international laws against genocide. You may have a minor
point here and there, but I have a good memory and recall your aiding and
abetting the Iraq disaster, with its hundreds of thousands of deaths, without so
much as a blink of an eye. I might listen to you more attentively were your
credibility not so shot.
I would fully support voter id laws if they were NOT designed in large part to
affect the outcome of elections. And, if they were actually addressing
something that was a problem.Neither of these things are true.
This editorial deserves national attention, and I am forwarding it to all my
friends. The ultimate irony is that Obama allegedly is a constitutional law
expert. Either that is an out-and-out lie, or he's an expert in the
Marxist-Leninist sense -- you understand the constitution so that you can ignore
and nullify it. This man is doing great damage to our system of government, all
for some 'higher purpose.' The destructiveness and self-righteousness
of this approach is plain to see for anyone who is really looking.
Once again DN, have some integrity. "Both sides.." then we get two
pages of conservative cripes. Secondly, the title says we're circumventing
the "rule of law" then goes on to describe legal maneuvers to circumvent
laws or policies. What about a Republican Senate that forces 61 yea
votes on anything the Democrats propose. Is that circumventing the law?Lastly, look around the world to what "circumventing the law"
really looks like. It looks like Egypt, Syria, etc. Your hyperbole is not
accurate or very professional.
A simple reading of the Constitution would clear up most "federal
duties". Those extra "duties" exist only in the minds of corrupt
and opportunistic politicians. The real "duties" of the federal
government are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. The are listed so that
no one can claim authority to do anything that has not been explicitly delegated
to the federal government by the people. Requiring or not requiring
voter I.D. is not on the list of "duties", therefore, it to be left to
the States or to the people. It is not a function of the federal government.
Rules and regulations written by bureaucrats are not part of the Constitution.
Executive orders are not part of the Constitution. Only Congress has authority
to legislate on the federal level. Eric Holder has no authority to legislate.
Barack Obama has no authority to legislate. His duty is to enforce the law.Dictators "dictate". Honorable and honest people work within
the bounds set for them by those who are in authority. The people, not the
President, are in authority. The President works for the people and is
obligated to do only what the Constitution has authorized him to do.
Re: "In each of these cases, the issues themselves are not as important as
the principles behind the rule of law."They certainly are to the
left-wing true believers that support these issues. And, therein lies the
problem. The advance of the left's political agenda trumps everything else,
in the childish, mindless, mirror-image echo chamber in which they choose to
operate. Suggesting that President Bush committing troops to protect
us from terrorism -- after the conveniently-forgotten approval of Congress -- is
somehow tantamount to scores of clear, cynical, politically-motivated, liberal
floutings of the law, particularly by the Obama regime, is a good illustration
of how willing the left is to abandon, not just the rule of law, but honesty,
decency, and any semblance of adhesion to civilized principle, as well, in order
to advance its agenda.Liberal thought can be circumscribed into that
great Orwellian principle -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are
more equal than others."Liberals believe everyone should follow
the law -- except liberals.
DN: "The rule of law requires all parties to submit to a process, respecting
outcomes with which they disagree"Republicans have never
respected the outcome of the election of Pres.Obama nor legislation that was
passed in Congress prior to the 2010 election. Presidents are given
the authority to appoint administrators/officers by the U.S. Constitution.#1 Instead of doing their job of allowing votes on Obama's
appointees, Republicans (like Senator Lee) have been filibustering even
non-controversial Judicial appointments. Republicans have been using the
filibuster not because the appointees are extremists but because they want to
undermine the functioning of the legally created NLRB, the CPFB, the ATF etc.#2 Texas voting laws, viewed as the strictest in the U.S., were struck
down earlier this year by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for being
discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision opened the door
for TX to reinstate them. (Note: The DOJ has not challenged all new voter ID
laws in the U.S.)#3 Prop 8 did get hearings in CA courts and they
lost. (R-Gov. Schwarzenegger is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution laws
This article contains several errors.The Supreme Court's
decision on the Voting Rights Act upheld the basic principles of the act,
including the section under which the Attorney General is challenging
Texas' voter ID law. The Attorney General's actions are consonant
with the ruling and the Voting Rights Act which is designed to protect voters
from discriminatory voting laws, as for example's Texas' voter ID law.
The article is factually mistaken when it describes such actions as technical
and legal end runs around the court.California's public
officials defended Prop 8 in court. When Prop 8 was struck down by a federal
court, public officials chose to not appeal the ruling believing the state would
lose and appealing would be a waste of time and money, something well within
their authority.By contrast, the issue of appointees to NLRB arose
because Republicans in the Senate refused to permit a yes or no vote on the
appointees. The President followed the law and made appointments and submitted
them to the Senate. The Senate then failed to perform its legally required
function. The article fails to mention that fact.
You don't get to pick and choose what aspects of the rule of law you
support or don't support. You're either for the rule of law - in all
its myriad manifestations - or you're not. We don't live in a
Mobocracy, and the majority of the people of Texas have been shown to disregard
the Voting Rights Act, multiple times. Texas is still part of the
United States, where the supremacy clause in the Constitution applies even to
them. If Eric Holder is able to prosecute Texas successfully in court,
that's the rule of law at work, and it should be respected.The
Voter ID issue has been shown to be a Pinocchio-level exaggeration by
Republicans, but I'd be fine with this law if every voter was issued a
Voter ID card to encourage voter participation, like they've done in
Mexico, with good success. But that would diminish the advantage
Republicans are trying to get at the polls because they know many poor voters
don't have drivers licenses. And if they tried, in Texas the DMV would
reduce staff to discourage them from getting an ID.It's Texas,
The votes of the populace are always subject to the rule of the US Constitution.
This country is NOT a pure democracy -- it's a representative,
CONSTITUTIONAL democracy -- which means that majority/mob rule does NOT take
precedence over the rights of minorities.Your so-called "rule of
law" appears to actually mean "rule of mob". But Texas and
California are not sovereign states. They, like every other state, are subject
to the US Constitution -- no matter who their respective mobs may want to
The DN should also point out that this administration has instructed DEA not to
enforce the federal drug laws, thus the states medical and recreational laws.
ICE has been told not to enforce the immigration laws to those under 30. If the
standard is the Constitution, the President's oath clearly does not allow
for him to ignore enforcement of the laws.Regarding SCOTUS Voting
Rights Act decision, it clearly points out that, as the Constitution says, it is
the sole prerogative of the states to determine voting standards for its
citizens. Holder is making this a political issue, that is the only way his
actions can be described.@marxist - Congress, unfortunately, gave
Bush the authority to invade Iraq.@pragmatistferlife - the 60 vote
standard has been part of the Senate for decades and it has been used by BOTH
parties to make a statement.SCOTUS ruled that the parties defending
Prop 8 did not have standing. That was disappointing and short-sighted. They
should have handed down a decision that clearly defines the rights of citizens
to amend a state constitution via referendums. Do we or do we not have such
rights? Unfortunately, they left the answer hanging.
"...Liberal thought can be circumscribed into that great Orwellian principle
-- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."...".Wrong.Comparing humans to animals
is the signature move of the face and voice of the Republican Party Rep. Steven
King R-Iowa. "...Liberals believe everyone should follow the law
-- except liberals....".Wrong.Republicans believe
everyone should follow the law-- except Republicans.Exactly.
Isn't Senator Lee attempting to circumvent the law with his threats of
retribution over the Affordable Care Act?
The Deseret News is arguing against itself in the first portion of this opinion.
First, the editorial writer talks about laws "designed to preserve fairness
through democratic representation, with built-in protections for the rights of
minorities." But in arguing against the U.S. Attorney General's attempt
to subject Texas's election laws or methods to federal review, the same
writer claims it is "an attempt to circumvent the will of the people in
Texas." Actually, it is only the will of the majority that is being
questioned here, because there is no built-in protection for the rights of
minorities. What Eric Holder is doing is attempting to re-enable those
protections for minorities that were eliminated in Texas.Also, the
DN failed to point out all the Republican attempts to not implement or to repeal
the ACA, which is a law passed in Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.
What? No problem with these shenanigans? Too bad Utah's official Republican
newspaper failed to mention that. But why should we expect it?
If President Obama is allowed to pick and choose the laws he will implement/
enforce as Chief Executive then am I allowed to pick and choose which laws I
follow? Congress passed (without a single Republican vote) he ACA with an
employer mandate and then when it becomes clear Democrats are going to get
smoked over it in 2014 he decides to unilaterally delay implementation. Are you
kidding me? That's the definition of lawlessness. And needless to say
Republicans get blamed for not "helping to fix" this travesty of a law.
And I want even get into what the IRS did to law abiding American citizens.
Peggy Noonan made a great point in her weekend column. Why is it that the party
that champions the benefits of big government apparently has no interest in
Governing? Cany anyone make an argument that this Admin has been even halfway
competent? The only thing the President is capable of doing is campaigning.
It's sad and it's scary.
@red state --"If President Obama is allowed to pick and choose
the laws he will implement/ enforce as Chief Executive then am I allowed to pick
and choose which laws I follow? "All executives (presidents and
governors) have the same right. Many previous presidents have exercised this
same right.Here's some papers and articles on the subject that
may help to educate you:-- "The Indefensible Duty to Defend"
at Columbia Law Review-- "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute
Unconstitutional Statutes" (written in 1994 by the then-assistant US
Attorney General)-- "When May a President Refuse to Defend a
Statute?" at Northwestern University Law Review-- "Executivie
Discretion to Decline to Defend Federal Law Against Constitutional
Challenge" by the Palm Center for Sound Public Policy.
When I turned 18, to celebrate I went and registered to vote. I was so thrilled
that I had the authority to have my voice be heard. I don't understand why
there is a problem with showing I.D. Even if you are not a driver, you can still
get legitimate I.D. through your state. If you are not a citizen, you should not
be allowed to vote, period. I certainly wouldn't move to France on a visa
think I was allowed to vote in their elections unless I gave up my US
citizenship and was granted citizenship in France. Many of our leaders are not
following the Constitution. It was set-up the way it was for a purpose. It has a
check and balance system which, in many cases is being ignored. Just remember,
as was said centuries ago: Power corrupts and total power corrupts completely,
unless you are a selfless man like George Washington who could have been a king,
he was so popular, but chose to follow the Will of the People.
@Clarissa --"I don't understand why there is a problem with
showing I.D. "The problem is that many poor people don't
drive, and therefore don't have drivers' licenses. And it is often
difficult for them to get other state-recognized ID -- either they can't
take the time off work to go get it, or they can't afford transportation to
go get it, or they don't have a stable residence address to put on it, or
they don't have a copy of their birth certificate, or any of a myriad other
problems. So voter ID laws unfairly discriminate against the poor.
@ Truthseeker,You say that Prop 8 got hearings in California courts,
"but they lost."That is not true, which is the reason Prop 8
went to Federal Court.A problem with Prop 8 exists now that the
Supreme Court has ruled, leaving only Judge Walker's decision in place.
This causes a multitude of problems which the executive branch of the California
government is exploiting, perhaps illegally. It remains for the California
Supreme Court to rule conclusively on this, but the ambiguities in the federal
rulings and their relationship to California law will cause problems.The California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was valid and that the private
citizens defending it had standing under California law. The US Supreme Court
ruled that the private citizens did not have standing under federal law, and
threw out the Appeals Court ruling, leaving Judge Walker's ruling intact,
which technically had validity under California law for only those couples who
sued and in only those counties where the lawsuits occurred.All of
this effectively gives veto power over voter-approved initiatives that the
California Constitution does not allow, throwing the entire process into chaos.
Poor people need ID to sign up for welfare and food stamps. I hear a
lot of excuses to stop America from making their elections honest.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments