I write this column because I think it’s important to make the case in support of constitutional liberty and to do that people need to better understand the Constitution. It’s meant to protect the individual in favor of limited government and yet government is more intrusive in our daily lives than ever before.
A volunteer group I am involved with distributes free pocket Constitutions islandwide (nearly 35,000 since 2013) toward that goal of increasing constitutional understanding. Of course, I am not totally unerring nor is my grammar flawless, but neither am I purposefully deceitful. However, the danger of failing to educate is real and so to my detractors I give you this in reply.
Regarding the constitutionality of DACA, David Case, the Justice Department as recently as June 8, 2018 agreed with Texas and six other states suing to fight the Obama-era immigration measure protecting hundreds of thousands of immigrants from deportation, saying that DACA is unlawful because it violates the U.S. Constitution in the same way the ill-fated 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, did. The Supreme Court has not, however, heard the case and is awaiting a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. We could say the “jury is still out” on the DACA case, but the Department of Justice has declared it unconstitutional.
To Anne Werchick’s letter to the editor, “Monthly column too loose on facts,” I would simply say an impartial viewing of the nightly news and all the screaming on cable TV tells you it’s not hard to come up with an endless stream of lawyers or federal judges, no matter who appointed them, ready, willing and able — Ruth Savakinas — to thwart any Trump ruling precisely for political reasons.
Executive orders may be not permanent and are often challenged. Saying that the views and opinions of non-lawyers like myself appearing in print should be reviewed by a competent attorney, per Werchick’s suggestion, is more proof of the ideological agitation on the part of the left which is no longer interested in winning the debate, but stopping the debate entirely, banishing all opposition.
John Pierce has the usual, well-thought out argument about Republicans ending the rule of law when many times they are merely enforcing existing law, and I guess the fallout from the recent Inspector General’s report will soon demonstrate whether anyone is held accountable. My guess is no.
In Mr. Van Pernis’ (“Kick Constitution Corner to the curb”) rant, if I may call it that, he accuses me of being an extremist, mainland wing-nut whose opinions belong in the funny papers. He seems to suggest that I may encourage folks not to pay federal taxes or their fair share, whatever that is. He calls me old and ignorant directing me to embrace political and social equality shedding my white, middle class, married ways. Whew! All I can say is he’s another one desperately trying to silence a minority view or any opposing opinion.
I think it’s timely to mention something the recently deceased Charles Krauthammer once said: “There’s a reason why in New York Harbor we have the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Equality.” We, in America, once strove for equality before the law which now seems to be out the window. We strive for equality of opportunity, but short of becoming a police state we can never guarantee equality of outcome because people have different characteristics, abilities and motivations.
My detractors have managed to get their progressive agenda in print by criticizing me, but the day they shut down opposing viewpoints is a sad day for all of us.
Mikie Kerr is a Consitution enthusiast who lives in Waikoloa and writes a monthly column for West Hawaii Today.