Myers: Why have laws that are not enforced?
Years ago I recall reading a book about Gen. Douglas MacArthur in which he explained the importance of issuing reasonable and enforceable orders and rules for the troops. I don’t recall the exact quote, but he generally said an organization never should issue a rule or order that it either could not or would not enforce. That really made a lot of sense, because if an edict is not enforced, the troops might decide there are other orders they do not like to follow, either. I realize there are countless stupid laws that outlive their usefulness — they are called blue laws — and merely are ignored rather than rescinded. They are not the type of laws that are being ignored now.
President Obama has announced that he fully intends to ignore the current immigration laws and issue work permits for millions of illegal immigrants now residing in this country. He is setting this up by preparing to print millions of work permits for these people. He waited until after the mid-term elections so it would not effect many Senate races. (Democratic candidates’ positions on the immigration issue were perceived as critical for their electoral survival.)
That action merely reinforces the overreach of the executive, and shows that the move is all about politics. If he really thought that this was within his authority and it was good for the country, he would do it immediately without considering the impact on elections.
When he does issue some type of executive order granting some type of amnesty, it will be challenged and end up in the courts, but that probably will take a couple of years. In the meantime, we will have millions of additional people who will force wages down.
This is not the first time that President Obama has used his authority to ignore the law. The Justice Department was told not to deport young illegal immigrants who came to this country with their parents when they were children. The Defense of Marriage Act was another law that the Justice Department refused to enforce. I accept the fact that the executive has some latitude in how our laws are enforced, but that latitude historically has been determined by issues other than ideology. Merely because one does not agree with a law is not sufficient reason to fail to enforce it as is obviously the case in these particular issues.
The founding fathers worked diligently to create a government with checks and balances so that one part of government could not seize control and run roughshod over the other two — and ultimately the population. They had escaped from such a system under a monarchy and did not desire to repeat it. What makes this more chilling is that it creates precedents for future presidents to determine what laws they may decide to ignore and refuse to enforce. Those on the left may think that it is great now, but I am sure that there will come a time when they are not in power and that president does not agree with their agenda.
Unlike almost every other country in the world, we have survived because of our Constitution. Other countries have ceased to exist at some time in history either from internal revolution or conquest from the outside. The rule of law, freedom and the open market have allowed us to grow and prosper as a nation and to be a magnet for the rest of the world. Those attributes will not survive if we fail to enforce the rule of law and all that it implies. Americans from all backgrounds and parties must not allow that to happen.
Donald Myers is a retired Marine Colonel and regular contributor to Hernando Today. He can be reached at [email protected].
