My blogging diminished for a while because there seemed little that was really worth talking about, but the Democratic primary election process starting up has produced an embarrassment of riches. This thing is a real clown parade.
Today’s thought is Kamela Harris and her thoughts on what she should do as president to “protect and defend the constitution” of the nation. Pertinent to the point I plan to make is that the constitution specifically says that all powers not specifically designated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
Harris stated this past week that she believed that yes, the federal government should return to imposing federally mandated school busing. She didn’t say so specifically, but one would assume that she wants that done by the Department of Education, since she used the phrase “return to” and it was the DoE which did it in the past. Her reason for the need for it was that, “is that if the states won’t do it then the federal government needs to step up.”
This is not an argument about what is right or wrong about school busing, it is about the federal government and its power over the states. Harris’ position would seem to indicate that she sees states as nothing more that geographical divisions of the nation, and does not acknowledge the right of states to exist as political entities, acting in accordance with the principles and beliefs of the people of each state.
This is the same person however who, as Attorney General of California, informed the law enforcement community of that state, all law enforcement agencies, that they were not required to comply with federal laws or assist federal officers in dealing with issues related to persons in this nation without permission. She went even further and said that not only were they not required to do so, but they were specifically forbidden to do so and, since hers is a “sanctuary state,” they were permitted to hinder the efforts of federal officers in their efforts to enforce federal laws.
Again, this is not an argument about what is wrong or right at the border, but is about the balance of power between federal and states. This action makes it very clear that Harris believes states have the right not only to act politically in accordance with their own principles and beliefs, but to do so in direct opposition to federal laws.
She is inconsistent. Not only does she say on one issue that states are sovereign, while saying on another issue the federal government is, but she is inconsistent in a manner precisely backwards from where she would be if she were reading the constitution.
The issue of immigration control and naturalization is specifically designated to the federal government by the constitution, and yet Kamela Harris claims that her state can ignore the government’s laws on that issue and follow its own policies instead.
The constitution is silent on the issue of education, leaving that as an issue to be controlled by states, and yet Harris is adamant that states do not have the right to implement their own policies in the conduct of that process.
I think we all know what the real problem is here. The real problem is that she is not thinking about these issues at all, but is simply using them as “stalking horses” in a manner that will pander to constituencies and secure votes for her path to the presidency. They are merely talking points to be used as steps toward the power of the White House.
I don't know if busing is a solution to the increasingly segregated schooling we are seeing. I think it's should be more of a local thing, as all education matters are, opposed to a federal mandate. After all, what is next in line if that happens? They could pursuade state and local entities via funding and so on.
ReplyDeleteI do not like the idea of 'sanctuary cities' and 'sanctuary states' - I just think that is flouting the law. you may not agree with the laws, but that is for your legislators to change, not you to flout as you see fit. I think that if anyone - legal or not (especially illegal) are afraid of going to the police, then crime and abuse of them will follow. I don;t think local police have any business asking about residency status, and that it should not affect persormance of thier duties. But if the feds legitimately /legally ask for thier assistance or whatnot, I think they should comply. I also don;t think that picking the low hanging fruit by the ICE is the best use of their resources either. But getting high value felons out of local and state confinement would require cooperation from the local authorities.
"Protect and defend the constitution" is an oath, but here I think it's more used as an euphemism to portray themselves as 'anti-Trump'. Trump of course is a fine example of flouting the constitution, so that wouldn't take much.
Some of them (Ms. Harris in particular) has stated they would use executive power to accomplish things. There have been complaint ssince the Republic began about presidential power and such. Here it seems hypocritical, in that they complain about Trump doing it, and were perfectly fine with Obabma doing it. Of course, the conservatives were on opposing sides, so I guess it just depends on the political party in power at the time. Even Obama said whne he enacted DACA that a succeeding president could undo it.
I think it is disingenuous for a candidate to openly state they might flout separation of powers to enact policy after decrying someone elses use of it. "do what I want or else". They whine about an imperial presidency and then want to practice the same themselves. I just have a problem with that philosophy, and can't easily go along with it. Besides, I think itis not just a campaign tactic (as are most of these), but I fear they would do exactly that. I am of the opinion that most of the pomp and bloviatin we are hearing foe the pack of democrats is campaign tactics and not an realistic sense of what they can actually accomplish once in office. Tell the voters what they want to hear, never mind the reality, the end justifies the means.
We really should get rid of Trump. I'm a little afraid of the replacement.