Vail Daily letter: Why believe Obama now?
Ms. Koby Polaski’s well written commentary of late (Valley Voices, Saturday) seemingly supported Mr. Obama’s executive order that refused to enforce the deportation mandates of existing immigration law. Or, in other words, transformed over 5 million “illegals” into quasi “legals,” ipso facto. Never mind the constructs of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or the mandates of Article II thereof, the excesses and encroachments of the current president seems to be legitimized by those of past presidents — two wrongs make a right, so to speak. The internment of Japanese/Americans during World War II is not precedence for modern-day FEMA camps under the Patriot or National Defense Authorization acts. The confiscation of lands belonging to Native Americans in the latter part of the 1800s should not be precedence for the civil confiscation of private property under IRS provisions. Should ritualism, custom, tradition or imperial excess trump the rule of law? Only when we spin and parse the plain meaning of English into the legalese of lawyers can we transfer the legislative function under Article I into Article II authority. Why do we now need lawyers to interpret the English language, especially when it appears to be so clear, succinct and unequivocal?
Ms. Polaski declares in her article, “The executive action promises many additional changes, including an increase in border security … and grow the economy.” Admittedly, the “executive action” changes the existing laws in the matter — it legislates those changes as the author avers. As before, the executive action “promises” many additional changes, like an increase in border security. Why, just why, under God’s or Obama’s name should we now believe that he will enforce his executive or imperial decree when in the past he has blatantly refused or failed to enforce border security under the legislated law of Congress? Is he (Obama) now saying that we can now have a secure border, period? Is he now saying that his fiat will “grow the economy,” period”? We have heard him double-speak so many times before, that to believe him now would confirm what fools we have already become. The difference between “stupidity” and “ignorance” is that the former connotes that we are unable to learn from our mistakes, whereas our ignorance of an issue is that we have trusted Obama’s “word,” and acted accordingly out of that trust. To believe him now would “Gruberize” us all as “stupid.”
Support Local Journalism
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User