Vail Daily letter: ‘Lout’ over rogue
Rohn Robbins’s article of Dec. 15 got me to thinking about the bombastic, mendacious, hyperventilating lout that Donald Trump is when he proposes a ban on immigrating Muslims to this country — these are all adjectives Robbins used to attack Trump personally. Yet, why would Robbins use these personal aspersions to make a legal point in his column? There is a political agenda of Robbins at work here that despoils his otherwise scholarly and historical analysis of the First Amendment. I now know that he doesn’t like Trump for political and personal reasons, but I miss his construct of how Trump violates the Constitution, and especially the First Amendment by exercising that right in speaking his mind freely, albeit during a campaign.
Robbins did not allude to a basic premise that the people of other lands and nations do not have a “right” under the Constitution, or laws in furtherance thereof, to immigrate to the United States, notwithstanding their religious beliefs, their ethnic heritage, their color, their sexual preferences, and so on. Of historical note and during the times when the Constitution was in draft stage (circa 1780s), the American/British colonists were at war with the Barbary Pirates, who were Muslim. aka “Musselmen.” Yet Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton et al. did personally feel that these disreputable folks, aka “enemy,” should not be allowed to disembark upon our shores. However, in 1789 these same founding fathers did address the issue of immigration by inscribing into the Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, which delegated to the people’s house, aka “legislature,” the power and authority to determine the rules for lawful immigration into the new American nation. Of note, there was no proscription in this article against any particular religion, even Islam, which was in much disfavor at the time. By innuendo and implication, “We the people” to which Robbins alludes, determine who is admitted to this country by our laws legislated under Article I, Section 8. And those referenced “people” are American citizens of today as they were American colonists on site at the genesis of this charter — not Middle Eastern refugees, Islamic terrorists from abroad, Barbary Pirates, or any other undocumented alien.
Robbins castigates Trump for his pronouncement for the protection of “We the people” by placing a ban on Muslim immigration. Of further note, Trump did not say that he would pass an “executive order” to accomplish that end! And I would further subsume that Trump would enforce the Article I, Section 8 laws that are on the books, no more and no less, as he would be obligated to do under Article II. Robbins does not mention the agenda of Mr. Obama which ignores the immigration laws (on the books), but rather illegally “legislates” new immigration laws via “executive orders” that admit Middle East refugees, because of the radical Islamic persecution that they have suffered, notwithstanding their contemporaneous and professed war against Israel and the “Great Satan” (We the people), or his unilateral legislation admitting undocumented Hispanics, because of their economic straits or to gain access to “sanctuary cities” and a better market in the illicit drug trade. Here, Obama actually circumvents the Constitution by legislating law or not enforcing the extant and legitimate laws that he should enforce.
Now, I could personally malign Mr. Obama with such adjectives as “outlaw,” “tyrant,” “potentate,” “rogue,” “renegade” or “traitor” but will not, since it is up to “people’s house” to assign labels under its plenary power of impeachment. Of final note, Article I, Section 8, clause 1 provides “The Congress shall have power … (to) provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States … ” and Article II, Section 1 provides that the president shall swear that he will faithfully “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Congress has performed its task in legislating immigration laws, the purpose of which was to provide for a common defense among other considerations. Has the President adhered to the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution by executing those same laws, and thereby preserving and protecting the Constitution? Has Mr. Trump really “stepped out of line” by proposing that we protect and defend “We the people” from all foes, domestic and foreign? So, Mr. Robbins, do not assume that Mr. Trump will follow Obama’s wayward lead on who is entitled to immigrate, for the Constitution is clear on that issue. I will accept a “mendacious lout” (to use Robbin’s aspersion) for the job of president when he enforces the laws of Congress any day, rather than a rogue in office who flouts those laws and ignores the mandates of the Constitution.