As the new year dawns, we enter a new phase of executive action under the administration of President Barack Obama.
I have long said that I feared this last year could be his most dangerous.
After all, what stops a man with deep liberal ideology from acting when he is so certain he knows what is best for this nation even if it is against our will?
The latest act of legislation was President Obama’s expansion of gun control.
And while brilliant minds can disagree over how to tackle gun violence in America, those same minds ought to recognize the dangers of unilateral executive action.
Tears for the Fallen
Now, I am a father of two girls myself — the same as Barack Obama — and a son.
It equally pains me too to consider the children slain in the Sandy Hook, Connecticut shooting.
Many are deriding President Obama for shedding tears during the press conference, but I won’t go there.
He is a man and a father who might very well simply be moved by that inexplicable tragedy.
Supporters of the Second Amendment need to be very careful in their response to President Obama’s actions.
I’m pretty sure 90% of America rejects the conspiracy theories that say the Sandy Hook, Connecticut shooting was staged.
I’m equally confident that they, as much as I and the president, generally lament the deaths of little children.
But to deride the president for his tears takes attention away from the genuine problem at hand.
It makes it look as if this is an attack on the man and not the unconstitutional actions of his hand.
But we must be clear as to what the problem is if there is any hope to correct it.
I believe Barack Obama to be a good man — just an extreme liberal with a potentially dangerous view of the Constitution.
Executive Gun Control?
The Second Amendment is kind of a real thing.
In fact, it is called the Second Amendment because it is the second one on the list of the Bill of Rights.
Never in the founders’ wildest dreams would they have foreseen one man placing such restrictions on the second thing on their list of things that they really didn’t want the government to take away.
Perhaps they might have imagined congressional action or even a ruling by the Supreme Court, but if they had planned for one man to limit this right, then they would’ve just remained under the control of the crown.
This is a dangerous precedent to set.
Executive action is supposed to be a method of clarifying or enacting uncontroversial actions of which the general public has very little interest.
Think about it like that limited power of attorney you sign at a house closing that says you give the attorneys permission to correct any spelling errors or dot an I or cross a T. It is not meant to legislate.
And beyond legislate, it is certainly not meant to reinterpret the Constitution of the United States of America.
We have a process for that, and it involves multiple parties getting a say in the matter.
What would be the reaction if a conservative president signed by executive action the requirement to have a state-issued ID before one could vote?
Liberals would be losing their minds, claiming this action an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote.
In conclusion on this matter, I just want to remind conservatives that winning elections matters.
Rhetoric that pleases the radio pundits and bloggers can get you all warm and fuzzy, but if it doesn’t simultaneously win elections, it is useless.
The next president will have an unprecedented precedent for doing what he or (and I say this with a little bit of throw-up in my mouth) she (and I think we all know who the she is) wants with little consultation with the other two pesky branches of government that the current president apparently believes were just a minor afterthought.
Things are going to get pretty dicey over these next 12 months, and we can only hope for the sake of the nation that those with thought contrary to the current president can put together a reasonable alternative to actually win this next election.
