September 16, 2015
Disenfranchising American Voters
The
Declaration of Independence established the basic idea that the
government of the nation must be made up of elected legislators who
answer to the will of the people. But in recent years the Democrat Party
of the United States, and specifically President Obama, have made a
willful effort to enact laws and policies without the consent of the
people.
Democrats
are engaged in dismantling the legislative branches of the Federal and
state governments using two strategies. The first strategy is to refuse
to enforce existing legislation. The goal of this strategy is to undo
the legislation of the past, and by default, make actions legal that
were previously illegal. All laws require residents to either perform an
action, such as the law that mandates a drivers license to operate an
automobile on public streets; or to refrain from an action, such as the
laws that require drivers not to exceed a posted speed limit.
There
are always some people who, for various reasons, want to avoid
complying with the law. But if the law is never enforced, or worse, if
public officials go on television and proclaim that the law will not be
enforced, then there is no reason for the majority of people to obey the
law.
At
some point if laws are not enforced then the original intent of the
legislators, and therefore the people they represented, is nullified. In
effect, a law is amended or repealed without the consent of the
people.
The
most prominent area where laws are repealed through lack of enforcement
is in the issue of Federal immigration law enforcement. Democrats have
used their non-enforcement strategy to repeal immigration law.
It
is fair to characterize this action as perpetrated primarily through
the Democrat Party, since their officials have taken the most drastic,
and illegal, actions to nullify immigration law. For example, in 1979
the City of Los Angeles issued Special Order 40. This order, issued by
the police department, clearly stated that it will not play any role in
the enforcement of Federal immigration law. To this day the order
remains in effect.
Interfering
with Immigration enforcement is a violation of the 1996 Immigration
Act. It is also a violation of law for a police chief to openly disobey
laws that are on the books. Nothing is done since promoting the movement
of illegal immigrants is obviously a high priority on the Democrat
Party’s national agenda.
Kim
Davis, a Court Clerk in Carter County, Kentucky, was arrested and
jailed for refusing to sign marriage certificates requested by same sex
couples, just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled, improperly, that
same-sex marriage is an issue under the purview of the Constitution.
Yet, to this day, not one official in San Francisco who refused to
follow ICE directives to retain illegal immigrants has been arrested.
Kim Davis’ actions did not lead to any deaths.
Similarly,
when Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin proposed a law making
any illegal immigrant guilty of a felony, Chicago’s Mayor Daley
immediately stated that if that proposal became law he would “order the
police to not enforce it.” He was not arrested. Not a single public
official in any town, city, or state who openly flouted immigration law
has ever been arrested and jailed.
Having
repealed existing legislation through selective non-enforcement the
next step was for Democrats to enact their own. Since their larger goal
is to disable the Federal governments’ legislative body, the Congress,
President Obama has invented, in the past five years, other means of
dismantling the ability of the people to pass and enforce laws through
the Congress.
This contrast does not just point to hypocrisy or a double standard, it points to the reason for the double standard.
Kim
Davis was challenging a law passed by fiat by unelected Supreme Court
Justices. As appointed officials, justices do not respond to voters.
They are not legislators. And as Chief Justice Roberts observed in his dissent, they
were doing nothing but legislating law, since the terms marriage,
married, or any other words refer referring to the institution of
marriage do not exist in the Constitution. And the Constitution clearly
states that any powers not given to the Federal government belong
exclusively to the States.
President
Obama’s actions prove he has knowingly and willfully disenfranchised
Congress. He, with the help of Senate leader Harry Reid, refused to pass
a Federal budget for over four years. The budget is a list of
appropriations approved by the representatives of the people. By
refusing to pass a budget, the president bypassed the votes of the
people. Unchallenged, he then became more emboldened to violate the
Constitution and dismantle Congress by issuing executive orders, such as
his order to stop deportations of illegal immigrants.
Not
only does the Constitution clearly state that naturalization is a power
exclusive to Congress, the president affirmed this when he had his
attorney general go after Arizona for SB 1070. The president’s Justice
Department at that time argued that Arizona had no legal authority to
enforce or not enforce immigration law, since only the Federal
government has jurisdiction over immigration law. Then he violated his
own assertion.
These
facts show that Democrats have long been engaged in an effort to seize
control of the government of the U.S. They are dismantling the
legislatures of the states and Congress with a two-pronged attack: 1) to
repeal existing laws by refusing to enforce them, and 2) to issue new
laws and regulations through Obama’s executive orders, appointed judges,
SCOTUS justices, the four public sector unions, Federal public union
employees, and the 32 czars the
president illegally appointed to make policy throughout the Federal
government. Democrats seek to replace the “consent of the governed” with
a small oligarchy of persons given power through appointment.
While
Democrats have long disenfranchised voters at the micro level through
vote fraud, their new macro tactic is to not worry about getting their
party’s candidates elected to pass laws but to just go ahead and refuse
to enforce laws that don’t agree with their party’s policies.
Democrats
are not pursuing anarchy. President Obama is pursuing a carefully
orchestrated national Democratic Party plan to dominate American
politics, energy production, financial markets, foreign policy, social
issues, and urban demographics for decades. Significantly, Obama’s two
landmark achievements, the Iran “deal” and ObamaCare, were never
supported by a majority of voters.
This
nullification of established law is nothing but a theft of governmental
authority. It is legislative and constitutional corruption. And it
appears that President Obama and his party have been, up until now, the
nation’s greatest practitioners of it.
This
may be very disconcerting for those who vote for Democrats, since they
have been convinced that Democrats stand for justice, equality, and
civil rights. Democrats like to say they support voters’ rights. But
their nullification of existing law proves that they totally disrespect
the rights of voters in the past, and Obama’s executive orders and
disdain for the legitimate legislative input of Congress prove an
absolute disrespect of current voters. Democrats don’t want equality --
they want to rule it all.
Declaration of Independence established the basic idea that the
government of the nation must be made up of elected legislators who
answer to the will of the people. But in recent years the Democrat Party
of the United States, and specifically President Obama, have made a
willful effort to enact laws and policies without the consent of the
people.
Democrats
are engaged in dismantling the legislative branches of the Federal and
state governments using two strategies. The first strategy is to refuse
to enforce existing legislation. The goal of this strategy is to undo
the legislation of the past, and by default, make actions legal that
were previously illegal. All laws require residents to either perform an
action, such as the law that mandates a drivers license to operate an
automobile on public streets; or to refrain from an action, such as the
laws that require drivers not to exceed a posted speed limit.
There
are always some people who, for various reasons, want to avoid
complying with the law. But if the law is never enforced, or worse, if
public officials go on television and proclaim that the law will not be
enforced, then there is no reason for the majority of people to obey the
law.
At
some point if laws are not enforced then the original intent of the
legislators, and therefore the people they represented, is nullified. In
effect, a law is amended or repealed without the consent of the
people.
The
most prominent area where laws are repealed through lack of enforcement
is in the issue of Federal immigration law enforcement. Democrats have
used their non-enforcement strategy to repeal immigration law.
It
is fair to characterize this action as perpetrated primarily through
the Democrat Party, since their officials have taken the most drastic,
and illegal, actions to nullify immigration law. For example, in 1979
the City of Los Angeles issued Special Order 40. This order, issued by
the police department, clearly stated that it will not play any role in
the enforcement of Federal immigration law. To this day the order
remains in effect.
Interfering
with Immigration enforcement is a violation of the 1996 Immigration
Act. It is also a violation of law for a police chief to openly disobey
laws that are on the books. Nothing is done since promoting the movement
of illegal immigrants is obviously a high priority on the Democrat
Party’s national agenda.
Kim
Davis, a Court Clerk in Carter County, Kentucky, was arrested and
jailed for refusing to sign marriage certificates requested by same sex
couples, just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled, improperly, that
same-sex marriage is an issue under the purview of the Constitution.
Yet, to this day, not one official in San Francisco who refused to
follow ICE directives to retain illegal immigrants has been arrested.
Kim Davis’ actions did not lead to any deaths.
Similarly,
when Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin proposed a law making
any illegal immigrant guilty of a felony, Chicago’s Mayor Daley
immediately stated that if that proposal became law he would “order the
police to not enforce it.” He was not arrested. Not a single public
official in any town, city, or state who openly flouted immigration law
has ever been arrested and jailed.
Having
repealed existing legislation through selective non-enforcement the
next step was for Democrats to enact their own. Since their larger goal
is to disable the Federal governments’ legislative body, the Congress,
President Obama has invented, in the past five years, other means of
dismantling the ability of the people to pass and enforce laws through
the Congress.
This contrast does not just point to hypocrisy or a double standard, it points to the reason for the double standard.
Kim
Davis was challenging a law passed by fiat by unelected Supreme Court
Justices. As appointed officials, justices do not respond to voters.
They are not legislators. And as Chief Justice Roberts observed in his dissent, they
were doing nothing but legislating law, since the terms marriage,
married, or any other words refer referring to the institution of
marriage do not exist in the Constitution. And the Constitution clearly
states that any powers not given to the Federal government belong
exclusively to the States.
President
Obama’s actions prove he has knowingly and willfully disenfranchised
Congress. He, with the help of Senate leader Harry Reid, refused to pass
a Federal budget for over four years. The budget is a list of
appropriations approved by the representatives of the people. By
refusing to pass a budget, the president bypassed the votes of the
people. Unchallenged, he then became more emboldened to violate the
Constitution and dismantle Congress by issuing executive orders, such as
his order to stop deportations of illegal immigrants.
Not
only does the Constitution clearly state that naturalization is a power
exclusive to Congress, the president affirmed this when he had his
attorney general go after Arizona for SB 1070. The president’s Justice
Department at that time argued that Arizona had no legal authority to
enforce or not enforce immigration law, since only the Federal
government has jurisdiction over immigration law. Then he violated his
own assertion.
These
facts show that Democrats have long been engaged in an effort to seize
control of the government of the U.S. They are dismantling the
legislatures of the states and Congress with a two-pronged attack: 1) to
repeal existing laws by refusing to enforce them, and 2) to issue new
laws and regulations through Obama’s executive orders, appointed judges,
SCOTUS justices, the four public sector unions, Federal public union
employees, and the 32 czars the
president illegally appointed to make policy throughout the Federal
government. Democrats seek to replace the “consent of the governed” with
a small oligarchy of persons given power through appointment.
While
Democrats have long disenfranchised voters at the micro level through
vote fraud, their new macro tactic is to not worry about getting their
party’s candidates elected to pass laws but to just go ahead and refuse
to enforce laws that don’t agree with their party’s policies.
Democrats
are not pursuing anarchy. President Obama is pursuing a carefully
orchestrated national Democratic Party plan to dominate American
politics, energy production, financial markets, foreign policy, social
issues, and urban demographics for decades. Significantly, Obama’s two
landmark achievements, the Iran “deal” and ObamaCare, were never
supported by a majority of voters.
This
nullification of established law is nothing but a theft of governmental
authority. It is legislative and constitutional corruption. And it
appears that President Obama and his party have been, up until now, the
nation’s greatest practitioners of it.
This
may be very disconcerting for those who vote for Democrats, since they
have been convinced that Democrats stand for justice, equality, and
civil rights. Democrats like to say they support voters’ rights. But
their nullification of existing law proves that they totally disrespect
the rights of voters in the past, and Obama’s executive orders and
disdain for the legitimate legislative input of Congress prove an
absolute disrespect of current voters. Democrats don’t want equality --
they want to rule it all.
changing
