. . . the State-of-the-Coup Address -- President Barack Hussein Obama's national platform for announcing his plan to ignore Congress, the Constitution, and the law so he can fundamentally transform America by executive decree -- here's the reprint of a classic Unca D post that illustrates why we can expect no opposition from the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle. From August 2012:
AUGUST 30 / So much for the Constitution. So much for . . .
. . . the rule of law.
The Chronicle has again endorsed the president's temporary amnesty plan for illegal immigrants brought here as children, so they can "work and study without fear of deportation."
So be it. Maybe it's good policy. But the president has no legal authority to do what he did. And permitting presidents to do things they have no legal authority to do is what, exactly? Simple lawlessness? Or worse?
How does the Houston Chronicle deal with the obvious illegality and unconstitutionality of the new immigration program?
Wistfully, pitifully, spinelessly, with a lame metaphor.
It's true that the president's action represents an end run around Congress. As we've said before, we would rather see the Dream Act passed, which would provide legal status and work permits for illegal immigrants who came here as children. . . . But President Obama never got the chance to sign the Dream Act, and for this we blame Congress, as the bill never reached his desk.
(Editorial, "Applauding baby step toward immigration reform," Houston Chronicle, Ausut 22, 2012)
This is an astonishing abdication of editorial responsibility. It's hard to overstate how astonishing.
At the heart of the American experiment and 19th-century liberalism is respect for the rule of law. To preserve the rule of law, it is especially important that our elites -- editorial boards, for instance -- believe in it and defend it.
On this depends law, democracy, even civilization.
Mobs prefer the immediate gratification of having things their own way, whatever that requires. Serious and honorable men and women do things lawfully or not at all.
The editors may properly blame Congress for not having done what the editors believe is right. But when Congress fails to do what the editors believe to be the right thing, that simply must be that.
If the Dream Act never reached President Obama's desk, then President Obama's duty -- and theHouston Chronicle's duty -- is to accept that defeat, at least for the moment. Representative government offers plenty of opportunities to fight again another day.
Instead, this president did what even his fondest and silliest supporter in Houston, the Chronicle, admits is "an end run around Congress," a thing presidents must not do.
End runs around Congress are unconstitutional. Period.
Those who love the country more than they love the passionate cause of the day would understand that. The Chronicle clearly does not.
Is there anything this president could do that these strange and thoughtless creatures in our midst would not applaud?
It's hard to imagine what it might be.
How will the Chronicle's respond once some less-favored president does what Barack Hussein Obama has done -- an end run around Congress to accomplish some purpose the Chronicle opposes?
It certainly cannot be a principled objection to presidential lawlessness.
What the president has done is not a baby step toward immigration reform. It's a large step toward despotism and authoritarianism.
The Chronicle's response to presidential lawlessness is one of a piece with the newspaper'sendorsement of the Occupy movement -- a vote for mobocracy and lawlessness over representative democracy and constitutional government.
Shame, shame, shame -- and shame again -- on the Houston Chronicle.
Comments