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 President Trump has now rescinded DACA and passed the buck to Congress.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

Guns and Crime

College professor wants Trump to use troops as police to end gun violence in Chicago

Published

on

Earlier this week, I wrote an article about how school shootings could lead us to the creation of a nationalized police force. In that piece, I documented how groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and race-baiting activists like Al Sharpton teamed up with Barack Obama to lay the foundation for the federal government to assume power over local police using the DOJ and a Police Czar.

Always willing to use the color of a person’s skin as a basis for creating policy, Obama had some limited success in moving the country toward a police state, but he stopped short of using America’s armed forces to accomplish his goals. However, if a professor of philosophy at De Paul University in Chicago has his way, Donald Trump may end up going where Barack Obama has never gone before.

In a public plea to Trump, published at TheHill.com, Jason D. Hill—whose specialties as a professor include ethics, social and political philosophy, and the philosophy of education and race theory—wants to bring an end to “genocide among black Americans” in Chicago.

To do this, Hill wants Trump to send in the military to “quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.” Hill is suggesting that Trump “use his powers to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act” to free up the military resources “necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.”

“I implore you to use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises, and send in the resources necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.

“Posse Comitatus makes no mention of the use of the militia, the National Guard, the Navy or the Marines. You can suspend this law and send in the forces necessary to quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.”

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law signed in 1878 by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes, designed to limit the power of the federal government to use the military to enforce domestic policies within the US. Though updated since its inception, and even though there’ve been a few tweaks since 911, the original intent of the act remains in effect.

Can Trump override PCA? Yes and no. It can be suspended for things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but it can’t be overridden for the purpose of enforcing state laws. This question is secondary, however, to the disturbing suggestion that we create a militarized home front.

By the way, Trump has already shown a willingness to use federal power to deal with gun violence in Chicago.

Besides being inconsistent with the values of liberty and freedom we enjoy as a Constitutional Republic, Hill’s request perpetuates a growing acceptance in America that we should voluntarily surrender our Constitutional rights to the federal government in exchange for safety.

Additionally, Hill holds a position of power as a teacher where he is free to spread Democratic-Socialist ideals such as this to the next generation—a situation made more dangerous by Washington politicians who have made destroying the Constitution standard operating procedure in order to increase their power over us.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Everything

Teach your kids to value life

Published

on

On May 21, 2018, the state of Maryland was stunned. A Baltimore County Police officer was murdered in the line of duty. Officer Amy Caprio was murdered investigating a burglary reported in a single family neighborhood in Perry Hall. The death of Officer Caprio sparked a massive manhunt that shut down the area and put multiple schools on lockdown. On the morning of May 22, 2018, Maryland breathed a sigh of relief that the suspected murderer and the suspected associates were all in custody. Dawnta Anthony Harris Jr. was apprehended and charged with 1st-degree murder. The 16-year-old was the lookout and getaway driver for three other individuals as they were robbing a house. The three others were all minors.

There was no shortage of stupidity arising out of this tragedy. Almost all of it coming from the Black Lives Matter crowd. They seek justification where there is none. The neighbors were right to call the police. BCPD was right to investigate a burglary. Officer Caprio was correct to have drawn her weapon. She was justified in discharging her weapon. She did not deserve to die.

The statement of probable cause shows that Dawnta Harris admitted that he partially opened the door, following the officer’s orders to exit the vehicle, but then shut the door and drove at the officer. For a split second, it seems, the value of life was pondered before being discarded. I wonder was there also a moment of consideration before he went down the path that has led to being charged with First Degree Murder.

A rational person knows that life has value: both yours and others. A rational person would not commit burglary because the consequences of getting caught far exceed the rewards of the heist. A rational person would not attack a police officer confronting their minor criminal activity. Is the result of going down for burglary and theft worse than disposing of the officer and reaping the rewards of the robbery? No rational person would think so. These teens do not recognize the value of life, so the Baltimore County Police Department lost a life due to their irrational actions.

How did four individuals wind up in this situation? Being minors, why were they not in school? The first and most likely answer is the parents or lack thereof. In Dawnta Harris Jr.’s case, this prediction is clear. A quick search on Maryland Judiciary Case Search shows that his father has enough experience with the law to be a paralegal. Dawnta Harris Sr. has numerous encounters with the law and some serious convictions that indicate he was a heroin dealer. If this type of parent is raising kids, it’s no wonder the value of human life was so muddied.

And certainly, the mother isn’t innocent even if she was doing most of the work. At some point in time, a parent needs to instill in their child the value of human life. Every parent of these kids failed. This wasn’t one mistake. This was a consistent pattern founded on a premise that diminishes the value and potential of human life. Life is too precious to throw away by running with a bunch of thugs. Life is too precious to steal a Jeep. Life is too precious to waste on a life of crime. These four teens have potentially thrown their lives away, and for what? A couple hundred dollars worth of other people’s stuff. We need to teach our kids that other people’s lives are worth more than that, and so are theirs.

Continue Reading

Politics

Thanks to spineless conservatives, DACA is about to be saved

Published

on

In yesterday’s Conservative Conscience podcast, Daniel Horowitz shared how the recently passed “Willie Horton jailbreak bill” by the GOP-controlled House is the latest example of why conservatives are losing the war against liberals like Trump’s son-in-law and Senior Advisor, Jared Kushner, who was the force behind the so-called “prison reform” legislation.

The reason for this sad state of conservative affairs, according to Horowitz, is the lack of leadership from so-called conservatives who have elected to make decisions based on their political self-interests instead of the values they claim to share with us.

I completely agree with his conclusion.

Outside of the jailbreak bill, these faux conservatives are joining hands with Republican “moderates” on another important issue—immigration. For example, last week Rep. Mark Meadows of the House Freedom Caucus led a revolt to block passage of a major farm policy authorization bill. Not because it was bad policy, but because Mark and his gang wanted the House to vote on fixing DACA first—a vote which could be coming up very soon.

Blue state Republicans and the Democrats they love are attempting to get enough signatures on a discharge petition—a majority is required—to force a DACA vote by the full House. This effort is opposed by Speaker Paul Ryan and the man likely to replace him, Kevin McCarthy, not because they disagree with the idea of saving DACA, but because they want to work with Trump to create a bill he will sign—a given since Trump has always favored saving DACA—and they are afraid of backlash at the polls in November.

Too bad they didn’t have those concerns when it came to repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood.

Clearly, the GOP has lost its way, and so-called conservatives are doing nothing to get things back on track, a reality Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) pointed out yesterday. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Sasse was asked about the Republican vision concerning trade considering Trump’s disjointed trade policies:

“I don’t know what the Republican party is right now, in general. Much more broadly, it’s hard to articulate a clear Republican vision.”

Actually, the Republican vision is quite clear if you’re talking about the November election because the GOP has “clearly” abandoned conservatives in an attempt to save their jobs.

That’s why conservatives always lose, and it’s why DACA will be saved.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.