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 President Trump has now rescinded DACA and passed the buck to Congress.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.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards, Co-Host of The New Guards Podcast, lifelong fan of the Anaheim Ducks, and proud Hufflepuff. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in English from Brigham Young University in 2017. One day later, his wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Richie is a constitutional conservative and doesn't see any compassion in violating other people's rights.

Democrats

Jim Koch likes tax cuts, so Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone is boycotting Samuel Adams beer

Published

on

Jim Koch likes tax cuts so Mayor Joseph A Curtatone is boycotting Samuel Adams beer

Some of us don’t agree with the President generally but appreciate some of the actions he’s taken. This is a reasonable stance; you don’t have to agree with someone philosophically or even like them personally to like some of their actions. Arguably the best thing the GOP Congress and President Trump have done since taking power are the tax cuts. What’s not to like?

Unfortunately, many on the left don’t feel the same way. Whether they’re against a particular policy or simply against against anything that starts with the letter “T” and ends in the word “rump,” they will go out of their way to not only protest the President’s actions but demonize anyone who doesn’t feel the same way. Such is the case with a Massachusetts mayor, Joseph A. Curtatone, and his fresh boycott against Samuel Adams beer.

Did they ship jobs overseas? No. Did they rip off consumers, lie about their products, or cheat on their taxes? No. Perhaps they espoused a Biblical worldview – many liberals hate that and will demonize any prominent people who do such a dastardly deed. No, they didn’t do that either.

What Jim Koch, co-founder and chairman of the Boston Beer Company who produces Samuel Adams, did was give praise about the tax cuts that are saving American tax-payers real money. At a dinner the President held for various business owners, Koch didn’t show support for the President or any of his more controversial policies. He likes the tax cuts, as any fair-minded and money-conscious American should. Unfortunately, that was enough to make Curtatone whip out his social justice warrior card and call for a boycott.

Even the Boston Herald had to question Curtatone’s stance.

Editorial: Mayor Walsh stands against Boston Beer boycott

http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2018/08/editorial_mayor_walsh_stands_against_boston_beer_boycottIt was an important, symbolic step for Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh to come out against any boycott of Samuel Adams ale, as Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone and others vowed to never drink the Boston Beer Co. product again.

Walsh told the Herald’s Brooks Sutherland, “I think that if you start talking about boycotting something against elected officials, including the president, there’s not much stuff we’d be able to buy in the country.”

When a liberal politician wants to make headlines, they fight against a perceived injustice. That means Curtatone believes the tax cuts were unjust. The people of Somerville should remember that next time they go to the balo

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Shafeeq Sheikh, doctor convicted of rape, should be in jail. He got probation instead.

Published

on

Shafeeq Sheikh doctor convicted of rape should be in jail He got probation instead

Shafeeq Sheikh raped a heavily sedated patient while working at the Baylor College of Medicine. After a rape kit matched his DNA, the jury convicted him of 2nd degree sexual assault with a maximum punishment of 20 years in prison. For whatever reason, the jury decided to give him 10 years probation instead.

Indian-American Doctor Convicted For Raping Patient Won’t Serve Jail Time

https://www.ndtv.com/indians-abroad/indian-american-doctor-shafeeq-sheikh-convicted-for-raping-patient-wont-serve-jail-time-1903083Sheikh will have to register as a sex offender. Unlike most states and the federal government, Texas grants juries the power to set criminal punishments.

The punishment has surprised defense attorneys, disappointed law enforcement and raised concerns from a victims advocacy group, according to media reports.

The jurors had recommended the sentencing, to which visiting Senior District Judge Terry L Flenniken was required to follow by law, according to local media report.

Generally, I like the way Texas handles criminal sentencing. Every now and then, justice is not served and this is clearly one of those cases. Here is a victim who has been permanently changed, having been raped by someone she should have been able to trust in a place where she should have felt safe. He is a predator who the victim believes has committed similar crimes before.

Violent criminals must be punished. While the maximum term may have been too much, to not serve at least a decade in jail after what he did is sickening.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

ICE gets media beating for taking illegal immigrant into custody over Mexican homicide warrant

Published

on

ICE gets media beating for taking illegal immigrant into custody over Mexican homicide warrant

It’s the type of story the media craves. An illegal immigrant, Joel Arrona-Lara, who “hasn’t done anything wrong” was detained by ICE agents while transporting his pregnant wife to the hospital. She ended up having to drive herself the rest of the way before delivering their son.

The spin is predictable. They skim over the fact that he has an arrest warrant in Mexico for homicide while putting all the focus on his wife’s dilemma. They even attempt to cast doubt on the warrant because the lawyer for the family says he couldn’t find a record of the warrant. This last part is most peculiar because it would be simple for a major media outlet to confirm the existence of the warrant. They did, of course, but they won’t report that when they have a better quote from the lawyer denying its existence.

Eventually details will emerge about the warrant, but not until the media inflicts as much damage as possible on ICE and anyone in favor of legal immigration being the proper way to enter the country.

Here’s the story. If you click through, you’ll even get a link at the bottom to the family’s new GoFundMe page:

ICE Detains Man Driving Pregnant Wife To Deliver Baby, Says He Is Wanted For Homicide In Mexico

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/08/18/joel-arrona-detained-by-ice-san-bernardino-driving-wife-to-deliver-baby/Her husband Joel Arrona-Lara was driving his wife to the hospital for a scheduled Cesarean section Wednesday afternoon when they had to stop to get gas. That’s when their car was approached by two SUVs. Maria said they were officers with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The mother of five was then asked to show her identification and complied. When the agents asked Arrona-Lara, the couple said he didn’t have the ID on him, but that they lived nearby and could go get it for them. The agents then asked Arrona-Lara to exit the vehicle, searched the car for weapons, and put Arrona into custody, leaving Maria alone at the gas station.

My take

There’s no doubt the circumstances surrounding all of this are unfortunate. Pregnant wives should not have to drive themselves to the hospital for a scheduled C-section. On the other hand, suspected murderers shouldn’t be entering the country in the first place. That point won’t be mentioned by mainstream media.

ICE has a responsibility to take people like Arrona-Lara into custody so it can be determined whether or not they should be deported. There may have even been a certain degree of leeway given had there been no records other than his status as an illegal immigrant, but being a suspected murderer with an arrest warrant took away any chance at leeway. The ICE agents did the right thing.

As a legal immigrant, I have no sympathy for those who cheat the system and break our laws. Blaming the ICE agents for doing their job correctly in order to keep us safe is the type of insanity mainstream media loves to sell us.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.