The emperor and the law, part gazillion

I'm constantly astonished by how little most Americans seem to care about the deliberate, thorough violation of the Constitution by the emperor and his minions over the past seven years.

I don't know if it's simply that no one knows about the clear, public record of what's happened, or that the few who do just don't understand the significance of what they're seeing.

The list of violations is long:  For example, the Constitution states that one of the main jobs of the president is to "see that the laws of the nation are faithfully enforced."  Yet your emperor has ordered all federal employees to essentially stop deporting virtually all illegal aliens.

Now, one can argue that U.S. law should be changed so anyone from anywhere can simply walk in and stay as long as they wish.  But unless and until such a law is passed, the president should enforce existing law.

Liberals will counter that this is irrelevant because the law regarding deporting illegal aliens was changed.  When you ask for the name of the public law that supposedly did that, and when it was passed, the few liberals who know anything factual about it will say the emperor issued an executive order that had the effect of changing the law.

That's interesting, because the Constitution says all laws must be passed by...wait for it...congress.
 
The Founders--the guys who debated and drafted the Constitution--seem to have had the idea that it was to be the "supreme law of the land."  Meaning not even the president could do something the Constitution prohibited.  But the emperor has found that he can override the Constitution by decree.  With the full approval of Democrats, and the acquiescence of the spineless Republicans.

As an example of the emperor violating an ordinary law:  Someone in the White House ordered IRS division chief Lois Lerner to delay the issuance of non-profit status certification to conservative political groups.  Use of the IRS for "political purposes" (read: to intimidate your political opponents) is explicitly prohibited by federal law.  A congressional committee served her a subpoena seeking copies of all emails to higher officials in Washington, for the period that would have covered the genesis of this scheme.

Lerner eventually responded that sadly, her computer's hard drive had crashed, so you silly congressional investigators can fuck off. 

The congressmen then went to the head of the IRS and said 'Federal law requires all agencies to back up copies of all emails off-site.  Provide the backup copies to us immediately.'

Astonishingly--and implausibly--the head of the IRS responded that his staff was unable to find any backup copies.  'Gosh, so sorry.  Y'all will just have to fuck off.' 

Congress was incredulous:  Are you telling us your agency hasn't been complying with federal law?  If you haven't, why not?  Recognizing that he was in a bind, the IRS head said zip.

Later an investigator went to the federal computer backup site and asked, 'Has anyone from the IRS asked y'all for the backup emails from the Cincinnati office of the IRS?'  The folks in the backup site said they'd never been asked for anything remotely like that.

Investigator then asked if they had the backups.  They did.

Now consider the effect here:  The head of the IRS lied to congress--brazenly, obviously, smirkingly--yet for some reason wasn't fired.  If they guy was so incompetent that he couldn't find the backups, he shouldn't be in charge of anything, let alone one of the most powerful federal agencies.  An honest president who valued competence would have fired such a presumably incompetent scofflaw.  Why do you suppose the emperor didn't fire the guy?



As noted above, one possible explanation for why no one seems to be concerned by our utterly lawless emperor is that only two percent of the population has any idea that any of these things is happening.  They get their "news" from the alphabet networks, which want to protect their emperor, and to avoid damaging the Democrat party's chances of winning the presidency again in November. 

But even the mainstream media will usually report the barest bones of a story; the editors know that if they only mention a lawless act once--instead of pounding it for a couple of weeks--most people won't remember it for long.  So the bare facts are a matter of public record.  It's just that no one sees anything to be concerned about.

A good friend offered some insight:  People are too busy keeping a roof over their heads to be concerned about things outside their immediate reach--job, marriage, kids, mortgage, taxes. 

My friend adds that the few people who have the time to dig out the truth and understand it probably rationalize that the emperor is no worse than previous presidents--that all prior presidents have violated the Constitution.  (I disagree, but certainly understand why this is a wide-spread belief.)

Yet another reason for lack of public interest is the belief that the problem of any president violating either the Constitution or ordinary laws is so huge that it simply can't be fixed.  Why get worked up about something if there's no way to change it?  This too makes good sense.

A society comes unwound by degrees.  Before 1996 or so, most Americans would have been furious if a president had committed perjury in a legal case.  But that year the president was proven to have done just that.  And in a videotaped deposition in that case he flatly denied doing what he'd been accused of--but later...uh...qualified his answer by saying "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

At a single stroke, keenly observant American teens drew an unsettling but understandable conclusion:  Perjury about things you didn't want to admit was okay, and you wouldn't be penalized if you did it.

Today we have the emperor who does whatever he wants, without regard to law or the Constitution.  What lessons do you think "activists" and "community organizers" have already drawn from this?  Do you think they'll be more inclined to obey the law, or less?