Connect with us

Everything

I don’t care about your position — just the Constitution

Published

on

I don’t care how you feel about illegal immigration. Whether you want open borders, a wall, mass deportations, path to citizenship, universal amnesty, or whatever else is the last of my concerns right now. What I find most troubling is that amid all the outcry, virtue signaling, and demagoguery “on many sides, on many sides,” disappointingly few seem to be considering the most crucial detail: the Constitution.

Americans’ indifference to the supreme law of the land isn’t unique to immigration reform, which I find when worse — we just don’t seem to respect the Constitution, period. You either support the Constitution or you want it overthrown; I belong to the former group, and I would hope that most Americans feel the same. But no matter which portions you would like to amend (I have a few myself), let’s at least honor the law as it currently stands.

I don’t care if you support the programs enacted through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Can we just acknowledge that President Obama had no constitutional authority to legislate them? President Trump has now rescinded DACA and passed the buck to Congress. This is exactly as it should be — under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress holds jurisdiction over immigration law.

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) have presented the bipartisan “DREAM Act,” effectively furthering Obama’s agenda in his stead. I think this is terrible policy. But does Congress have the authority to make that call? Absolutely. We can have a discussion about which strategy is in our country’s best interests, but there’s no denying that if Congress passes legislation like this, at least they did so legally.

And that is our country’s best interest: upholding the constitutional republican process. Respecting order and the rule of law. As Barry Goldwater said, “I was informed that [the people’s] main interest was liberty, and…in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

Like I said, this applies to any political issue:

I don’t care how you feel about birthright citizenship. But can we accept the author of the 14th Amendment’s statement that birthright citizenship isn’t awarded to immigrants, aliens, and other non-nationals under the Constitution? Add an amendment by all means, but let’s not pretend the Constitution says something it doesn’t.

I don’t care how you feel about judicial review. Maybe it’s a good idea. But can we recognize that it’s not in the Constitution? Hamilton argued for it in The Federalist Papers, particularly #78, but the Founders didn’t end up supporting him. Honestly, I can see the argument. Maybe we need an amendment; maybe Congress can’t be trusted to honor the Constitution. But are we any better if we keep misrepresenting the powers granted to the judiciary?

I would love to have a conversation about abortion, civil rights, healthcare, and education. But can we first acknowledge that the Founders specifically outlawed abortion under the Constitution and that the other three powers aren’t afforded to the federal government at all? Let’s talk about it. Maybe we should amend something, maybe not. But talking about it is useless if we can’t respect the caveat that the Constitution must be upheld.

It’s one thing to philosophize about what the Constitution should be. It’s quite another to accept what it actually is.

I don’t care where you stand on these issues. Let’s just get power back to where it’s legally supposed to be, then we can talk.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

Published

on

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

on

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kamala Harris stutters through non-answer when asked about her Jussie Smollett Tweet

Published

on

Kamala Harris stutters through non-answer when asked about her Jussie Smollett Tweet

In one of the most cringeworthy moments of Senator Kamala Harris’s new presidential campaign, the California Democrat found herself hesitant and uncertain about her feelings towards Jussie Smollett’s apparent hate-crime hoax. This is in stark contrast to her bold and racially charged accusations of a “modern day lynching” allegedly perpetrated by two Nigerian actors at the request of Smollett himself.

Above, you can see her attempt to calm the situation and state that facts are still emerging about the case. Of course, this is three weeks after the alleged incident, which is strange since her response the moment the news broke seemed to express zero interest in waiting for facts to emerge.

“. is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.”

This is the latest minefield Democrats find themselves traversing after quickly reacting to false claims. It happened with the Covington Catholic School boys. It’s happened far too many times since President Trump ran for President in 2016.

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

http://noqreport.com/2019/02/18/anti-maga-hoax-epidemic/There’s a trend that’s been quietly, consistently rearing its ugly head against the President of the United States and his supporters since before the 2016 election. We’ve seen it among unhinged journalists, virtue-signaling celebrities, and Democratic politicians. We’ve seen it manifest in the ugliest form of hatred – the common hate-hoax – and it’s doing more to divide America than the source of the perpetrators’ anger.

They hate President Trump. They hate the people who got him elected. The hate the idea of making America great again because as much of the MAGA agenda comes to pass, they’re learning they’ve been wrong the whole time. I know first hand. I’ve been proven wrong myself.

It doesn’t take a skilled orator or ethical paragon to say, “I reacted too quickly before. I should have waited for all of the facts to come out before reacting emotionally.” Of course, doing so requires humility, which Kamala Harris apparently does not have.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report