We're Supposed To be a Nation Based on Law
- Print print this page
- Discuss 31 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
We are a nation founded on law. Law was and has always been the fulcrum for our government.
It was deliberately so when the Founders worked their magic to create a new nation. On one end was ruler's law and tyranny - on the other end was no law and anarchy. Where the fulcrum rested was the people's law.
To find it, the Founders studied Anglo-Saxon common law and the people's law of ancient Israel. Our laws were thus not tossed together lightly because they are the keys to who we are.
Why then do so many people in high places try to dismiss them or ignore them or flout them? And why do they get away with it for so long? It isn't because the violations are hiding in dark crevices; most of them occur right out in the open.
Our Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, yet was confirmed for a Cabinet post. Charles Rangel has pulled illegal stunt after illegal stunt and, until recently, simply winked at the law.
Perhaps the biggest complacency about breaking the law concerns illegal immigrants. When Arizona decided to step in and do the work the federal government should be doing, a judge stopped part of Arizona's law. Protesters screamed "racism" and declared the whole idea of protecting a state and law-abiding citizens to be "unfair."
Some opponents to the law shouted that we are a nation of immigrants - that immigrants built this nation and should be protected. Marchers and sign-carriers called on the protection of our First Amendment (part of our laws) to shout out their messages.
But nowhere do the protesters mention the word "illegal." I thought that maybe I just did not understand it, so I looked it up in the dictionary. Illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. What's so difficult about that?
As Gertrude Stein might have put it, a law is a law is a law. You can't just break them because they appear to be unfair to some people. Laws can be changed; our Constitution can be amended. There are provisions in our nation founded on law to do just that. In the meantime: obey them.
Lawbreakers have always been around and probably always will be. What troubles me is the blatant way our government leaders are breaking the law, with the usual defense: "I didn't know" or "I forgot." Do we really want people to represent us who "don't know"? This is obviously another reason for term limits.
Charles Rangel initially represented Harlem, but with years of seniority he built a mini-empire that included chairing the Ways and Means committee - which means controlling money. Term limits would have blocked that. A fair tax or even a flat tax would have taken away more of the power that leads government leaders to think they are above the law.
What began as a service to the people has become a choice plum that attracts the power-mad, the greedy and the unethical. It was not always that way. Harry Truman was a true public servant who refused to capitalize on the office of the presidency. When he left the White House, he drove his own car back to Missouri. No entourage of Secret Service people accompanied him. No pension, no book deals, no high paying speeches.
Contrast that with the multi-millions Bill Clinton has accumulated over the years, and we can understand the allure of running for office. People in government should not be compared to superstar athletes or a high profile rock stars.
Rock stars may influence us, but they do not speak for us. Members of the hierarchy of government do. They are elected to "serve," and must agree to a higher standard than superstars. They are elected to represent us - we the people - and they are not above the law.
They and we should remember this in November.
Allan Jefferys, a former New York theater critic and newsman, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at oldjeff@nc.rr.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
lindy888 1 year, 6 months ago
I believe the Supreme court of today..proves that Congress has lost their way....these people cannot be held responsible because they are there for life....why wouldn't an amendment to our constitution be in line to stop a lot things Mr Jeffries writes about?
MaxSt 1 year, 6 months ago
Our current system allows this type of mess. After all, why should the govt. be responsive to us when, by law, the income tax takes our money throught payroll deductions before we receive it and sends it to the coffers of Washington? It's time to transfer power back to "we the people." Enact the Fair Tax. End payroll deductions, stop taxing savings and investments and give people more control of the amount of taxes they pay.
TheNeedle 1 year, 6 months ago
It figures that Prometheus would be an Ayn Rand fan. The turgid, nearly unreadable writing, the arrogance and pomposity, the attempt to elevate sociopathy to a political philosophy--P may very well be the reincarnation of that psychotic, vicious hag who one wrote of a convicted serial killer who'd kidnapped, raped, murdered and dismembered a 13 year old girl that he was "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism."
People like Rand (and Prometheus) have elevated lack of compassion to such a fetish that they'd likely be serial killers themselves if they could work up the energy.
sgmartin 1 year, 6 months ago
I think we can have immigration reform without losing are humanity. The AZ law is way to close to comfort for me of Nazi Germany. And while I can trace my family back to the 1600s on both sides, I have always been mindful of the fact that I am a descendent of immigrants.
CJ 1 year, 6 months ago
Not against people coming to America but come here, learn ENGLISH!!! Get a job, pay taxes and become responsible citizens. Don't stay here and force others to conform to your way. You can't go to any other country and not have to follow some "rules".
annettespal 1 year, 6 months ago
Well said CJ! you just left out become "legal"!!
teufelhunden 1 year, 6 months ago
Regarding ILLEGAL immigration: Don't forget about all of the diseases they are reintroducing to our legal citizens. Great.
MikeNC 1 year, 6 months ago
Dear Ms. Martin, Please spare me of me the thoughts of conguring up days of Nazi, Germany and comparing it to the Arizona Bill. I have lived in Germany and will aware of their version of Immigration. The immigrants and gypsies that live there, for the most part, live in the slums of major German cities and in little hut homes on the borders of the major cities. The immigrants in Germany do, for the most part, menial labor and have low paid grade trade. And they have cards. And they have jobs. And they have to pay taxes. And they have to leave after 20 years or become German Citizens. As for the Illegal Immigrants crossing or borders daily, the criteria, isn't EVEN close. The Arizona Bill is BASED on the ORIGINAL FEDERAL LAW, which to date, is not being enforced with the integrity it should be. As for your ancestors arrving here in the 1600s, mine greeted them. Diane McLellan
sgmartin 1 year, 6 months ago
@steveital - you know my type. Wow! You must be psychic. I do believe you are trapped in a cognitive distortion. I simply don't think the the AZ law is consistent with American - or Christian - values. We need to find another way. We need comprehensive immigration reform at a national level - that is humane and not punitive.
@mikenc - ".As for your ancestors arrving here in the 1600s, mine greeted them" . Your point? You were here first? OK. I'm happy for you.
OldSpook 1 year, 6 months ago
And STEVEITAL wins this discussion hands down! Nice try everyone else, thanks for playing. Oh, and that JIMT query about how to deport 12 million persons, the answer is to give all illegal’s a 90 day window to leave the country peaceably with their money and whatever else they own or face deportation with their monies forfeit to the state after the 90 day window. Local police would assist ICE in rounding up the remains. Yes, this is legal and would hold up in court but lawyers would protest and the illegals would protest. Oh well, sucks for them what part of “illegal” is not clear in “illegal immigrant”?
Steveital – Yo viví en Alta Mira en el 9o tranversal desde 82 a 87.
OldSpook 1 year, 6 months ago
JIMT,
First, there is a great deal about me you don't know and never will know. Second, and with no disrespect intended, but there is no 100%, ironclad, non-exclusive and/or acceptable solution acceptable here. However, simply saying its okay for illegal’s to stay is not acceptable either. Simply looking down on the populace and saying; "Your answer is unacceptable, bring me another!" is just as unacceptable. So besides just stamping your food and finding our answers unacceptable, what do you propose?
OldSpook 1 year, 6 months ago
First, there is a great deal about me you don't now and never will, know. Second, and with no disrespect intended, but there is no 100%, ironclad, non-exclusive and/or acceptable solution acceptable here. However, simply saying its okay for illegal’s to stay is not acceptable either. Simply looking down on the populace and saying; "Your answer is unacceptable, bring me another!" is just as unacceptable. So besides just stamping your food and finding our answers unacceptable, what do you propose?
eflat7 1 year, 6 months ago
..."yes you can make them leave, all of them." Steveital
How?
If all 50 states introduced bills just like the one in AZ, instead of them all hauling booty to LA and other states, they would go home on their own.
Haven't you seen the news that illegals are fleeing AZ? Crank up a few hundred buses, top off the gas tanks, introduce bills (maybe even sign em into law) and watch em go.
Or simply let the Federal Government enforce existing laws. We all know thats the real fantasy here though.
teufelhunden 1 year, 6 months ago
Steveital-you have the facts and I echo OldSpook. Bravo.
OldSpook 1 year, 6 months ago
Jimt,
You make some excellent points worthy of serious consideration and support. I personally like going after those who hire illegal’s and really like the concept of paying a "living" wage vice a minimum wage. Okay, $15 an hour might be a little much for unskilled labour, but certainly not by much.
Biometric identity cards will be a sticky issue, mark of the beast and all that you know.
I'm still not overly enthused about another general amnesty and would prefer the 90 day warning to get out of Dodge with your money or lose it. However, if the illegal’s could prove they had been with the same employer for 7 years or more without incident then an amnesty should be seriously considered. However, back taxes must be paid! They should suffer a fine also, but that might be waved.
Point being, we stopped the insults and started a dialog with the exchange of ideas and offered potential solutions. Why can't our elected leaders do the same?
OldSpook 1 year, 6 months ago
Our elected leaders, either Demon-crats or Repugnant-cans (I'm really beginning to like those terms) lack the fortitude and integrity to stand against the special interests groups or other powerful lobbyi$t$ who pay them big buck$. I realize there may be exceptions, but please forgive the generalization.
I chose 7 years with the same employer to establish a proven record of willingness to work and reliability beyond reasonable doubt. Yes this would mean an employer would need to prove this and risk legal issues; however these could be waived during the investigative period. I would like to add your idea of "X" years without criminal record also and would suggest a like number of years.
But let’s expand this idea. What would happen if these that could prove their record were granted amnesty, issued social security cards and simply issued their citizenship papers on the spot, at the court house? Those with say 4-6 years who could prove their ability could be issued green cards until they reached their 7 year mark whereby they could file for citizenship. Those with less than 4 years would need to apply for a 7 year work permit, learn the "national language" of "American" (no, we don't speak "English") and pass the citizenship test. If they fail, they must reapply yearly for a single year work permit.
Not a conclusive answer by any means, but perhaps a cost effective start.
teufelhunden 1 year, 6 months ago
jimt-You scoff and deny that it could be true. You believe it to be "crazy". I believe it to be true. The mark of the beast will present itself, in what form we do not know, but it is coming. Will you scoff then? What will you do?
Also, are you saying that one cannot be a Democrat & a Christian?