Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

A Nation of Laws (When it’s Convenient)

 

When he grew frustrated by Congress’s unwillingness to do what he wanted, President Obama took matters into his own hands and created DACA, a “law” in every sense except the most important one: it wasn’t passed by Congress. President Obama knew he wasn’t Constitutionally empowered to do what he did — he’d often said exactly that. But he did it anyway, because he believed in the cause more than he valued the rule of law.

Education Secretary DeVos is in the process of rescinding Obama administration regulations that require colleges, if they wish to continue to receive federal funding (including federal student loan money), to deny students accused of criminal sexual misconduct the protections guaranteed to the accused by our Constitution. The Obama rules replace the criminal courts with a kangaroo court that ignores rules of evidence, due process, and legal principles enshrined in the Constitution — because President Obama believed in the cause more than he valued the rule of law.

The violent activists of the ironically misnamed “antifa” movement routinely and brazenly break the law in their self-righteous opposition to speech they don’t like. It doesn’t matter whether the speaker is a legally authorized political group, an elderly scholar, or a right-wing gadfly: these so-called “anti-fascists” are happy to deny these speakers their legal rights in true fascistic fashion — complete with truncheons and Molotov cocktails — because they believe in their cause more than they value the rule of law.

We on the right should continue to work within the law, because that’s how civilized people conduct themselves in a democratic constitutional republic such as ours. Those who sweep the law aside when it’s inconvenient are barbarians — even if they think their righteousness gives them the moral authority to force their ideas on the rest of us.

Published in Culture
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 21 comments.

  1. Member

    I think of Lord Kames view that peaceful trade and living requires a different legal system than the old clan way of doing things. It is almost as if we are developing two systems of law within one culture. One is based on rule of law and the other on emotive tribal type justifications. Obama used the idea of fairness to justify his actions, and I don’t think that is the same as justice. I always wondered if he cheated his golf score.

    • #1
    • September 12, 2017 at 6:26 am
    • 1 like
  2. Member

    A Man for All Seasons

    Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    • #2
    • September 12, 2017 at 7:05 am
    • 8 likes
  3. Contributor

    Social Justice is not about justice, it’s about revenge, power and intimidation. Justice is about individuals, Social Justice is a mixture of voodoo, belief in karma and quixotic fantasy that “making an example” of someone will stop whatever egregious wrong is alleged to have happened from ever happening again to anyone – ever.

    • #3
    • September 12, 2017 at 7:15 am
    • 15 likes
  4. Member

    A nation of laws must be not only a nation that abides by laws when they are inconvenient but also one that plainly and forcefully rejects pretenses portrayed as true laws. Republicans consistently fail in the latter responsibility. False laws must not be enforced.

    The most glaring example is Obamacare. We the people never authorized our representatives to be represented in turn. Representation means nothing if a vote can be submitted blindly, without having even read the item one assents to. The fundamental purpose of democracy is to empower the free wills of individuals. A needlessly blind choice does not fulfill that purpose.

    Even a child understands that the question “Do you want what is in my right hand or what is in my left hand?” is not a real choice while the contents are hidden. And even a child understands that rules are insignificant when someone is allowed to break them with impunity or make them up as they go along.

    We are less a lawful society every time citizens submit to these farces for fear of officials’ power. Without resistance from our own powerful officials, the replacement of law with fiat is guaranteed.

    • #4
    • September 12, 2017 at 8:48 am
    • 8 likes
  5. Member

    But, Batman!

    • #5
    • September 12, 2017 at 9:14 am
    • 1 like
  6. Member

    Henry Racette: Education Secretary DeVoss is in the process of rescinding Obama administration regulations that require colleges, if they wish to continue to receive federal funding (including federal student loan money), to deny students accused of criminal sexual misconduct the protections guaranteed to the accused by our Constitution

    Shouldn’t there be a new requirement that continued receipt of federal funds requires that no colleges continue the process required under the rescinded regulation. Some administrations like doing what Obama’s Education Department required.

    • #6
    • September 12, 2017 at 12:01 pm
    • 3 likes
  7. Contributor

    I think one of the latest of the poor outcomes was the Dept. of Justice deciding not to pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner. They concurred with the assessment of Obama’s DOJ or the investigator that it was mismanagement, not breaking the law. After reading Kimberley Strassel’s The Intimidation Game, you can’t convince me of that. Sad.

    • #7
    • September 12, 2017 at 12:31 pm
    • 6 likes
  8. Member

    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    • #8
    • September 13, 2017 at 7:28 pm
    • 1 like
  9. Contributor
    Henry Racette Post author

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    • #9
    • September 13, 2017 at 7:33 pm
    • 3 likes
  10. Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    Doesn’t work when the cops stand by and watch, as they have done repeatedly. Unless you’re ready to send in federal troops.

    • #10
    • September 13, 2017 at 7:36 pm
    • 1 like
  11. Contributor
    Henry Racette Post author

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    Doesn’t work when the cops stand by and watch, as they have done repeatedly. Unless you’re ready to send in federal troops.

    I know.

    But my interest is winning the cultural war, not beating people up and delivering street justice — however appealing that may sound as we watch these smug punks and thugs breaking the law. So I’ll keep hoping the conservatives in these confrontations respond non-violently whenever possible — but pursue the matter in court at every opportunity.

    • #11
    • September 13, 2017 at 7:46 pm
    • 2 likes
  12. Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    Doesn’t work when the cops stand by and watch, as they have done repeatedly. Unless you’re ready to send in federal troops.

    I know.

    But my interest is winning the cultural war, not beating people up and delivering street justice — however appealing that may sound as we watch these smug punks and thugs breaking the law. So I’ll keep hoping the conservatives in these confrontations respond non-violently whenever possible — but pursue the matter in court at every opportunity.

    Is it possible that our Attorney General is operating on a strategy of giving the smug punks and thugs enough rope so that they will snare themselves? This because any evidence used to move against them must be straightforward and irrefutable in terms of legal interpretation.

    • #12
    • September 13, 2017 at 7:55 pm
    • Like
  13. Contributor
    Henry Racette Post author

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    Doesn’t work when the cops stand by and watch, as they have done repeatedly. Unless you’re ready to send in federal troops.

    I know.

    But my interest is winning the cultural war, not beating people up and delivering street justice — however appealing that may sound as we watch these smug punks and thugs breaking the law. So I’ll keep hoping the conservatives in these confrontations respond non-violently whenever possible — but pursue the matter in court at every opportunity.

    Is it possible that our Attorney General is operating on a strategy of giving the smug punks and thugs enough rope so that they will snare themselves? This because any evidence used to move against them must be straightforward and irrefutable in terms of legal interpretation.

    I suspect not. It doesn’t seem to me to be a federal matter, not in general. Local law enforcement should begin enforcing the law. In my opinions, universities should be sued for failing to provide adequate protection. And public universities should be sued if they use the risk of a riot as an excuse to silence conservative voices. I just don’t see a federal role in this right now.

    • #13
    • September 13, 2017 at 7:58 pm
    • 1 like
  14. Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    Doesn’t work when the cops stand by and watch, as they have done repeatedly. Unless you’re ready to send in federal troops.

    I know.

    But my interest is winning the cultural war, not beating people up and delivering street justice — however appealing that may sound as we watch these smug punks and thugs breaking the law. So I’ll keep hoping the conservatives in these confrontations respond non-violently whenever possible — but pursue the matter in court at every opportunity.

    Is it possible that our Attorney General is operating on a strategy of giving the smug punks and thugs enough rope so that they will snare themselves? This because any evidence used to move against them must be straightforward and irrefutable in terms of legal interpretation.

    I suspect not. It doesn’t seem to me to be a federal matter, not in general. Local law enforcement should begin enforcing the law. In my opinions, universities should be sued for failing to provide adequate protection. And public universities should be sued if they use the risk of a riot as an excuse to silence conservative voices. I just don’t see a federal role in this right now.

    When this violence is committed at state university facilities to stop nothing more than speech and the state does nothing to insure the protection of the civil rights of the speakers being attacked or assaulted or disrupted, does this not then move to the realm of federal law recognizing a state enforcement failure? Hey, I’m no lawyer so I’m just trying to understand how free speech rights in government venues get protected.

    Edit: Maybe there has to be suits against the state and local authorities and then get rulings that will bring in the Feds.

    • #14
    • September 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
    • Like
  15. Contributor
    Henry Racette Post author

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    When this violence is committed at state university facilities to stop nothing more than speech and the state does nothing to insure the protection of the civil rights of the speakers being attacked or assaulted or disrupted, does this not then move to the realm of federal law recognizing a state enforcement failure?

    Honestly? Absolutely no idea. ;)

    Whoever finally slaps these punks down, whether local or federal agencies, I’m all for it. But, most importantly, the public has to come to understand that the guys wearing the masks are the bad guys. And I think that message is beginning to come through.

    So here’s the “good” part. It isn’t going to stop. Left extremists don’t understand the idea of backing down. And they’re overreaching. The transgendered bathroom thing was an overreach. The pick-your-pronoun thing was an overreach. Both are stupid, and neither is going to work. Disrespecting the flag a la a new generation of spoiled NFL millionaire brats is an overreach.

    But it isn’t going to stop, and more and more leftists interested in saving their brand are going to have to start denouncing what too many core progressives are doing. And even that won’t work, because these aren’t people who understand decorum, backing down, or compromise.

    It should be interesting.

    • #15
    • September 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm
    • 2 likes
  16. Member

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Judge Mental (View Comment):
    When it comes to Antifa, it’s important to remember that when it comes to violent assault, violent assault back falls into the category of acting within the law, namely self-defense and defense of others.

    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    Doesn’t work when the cops stand by and watch, as they have done repeatedly. Unless you’re ready to send in federal troops.

    I know.

    But my interest is winning the cultural war, not beating people up and delivering street justice — however appealing that may sound as we watch these smug punks and thugs breaking the law. So I’ll keep hoping the conservatives in these confrontations respond non-violently whenever possible — but pursue the matter in court at every opportunity.

    Is it possible that our Attorney General is operating on a strategy of giving the smug punks and thugs enough rope so that they will snare themselves? This because any evidence used to move against them must be straightforward and irrefutable in terms of legal interpretation.

    I suspect not. It doesn’t seem to me to be a federal matter, not in general. Local law enforcement should begin enforcing the law. In my opinions, universities should be sued for failing to provide adequate protection. And public universities should be sued if they use the risk of a riot as an excuse to silence conservative voices. I just don’t see a federal role in this right now.

    When this violence is committed at state university facilities to stop nothing more than speech and the state does nothing to insure the protection of the civil rights of the speakers being attacked or assaulted or disrupted, does this not then move to the realm of federal law recognizing a state enforcement failure? Hey, I’m no lawyer so I’m just trying to understand how free speech rights in government venues get protected.

    Edit: Maybe there has to be suits against the state and local authorities and then get rulings that will bring in the Feds.

    I would expect the suit to be in federal court. Standard for civil rights complaints.

    • #16
    • September 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm
    • 4 likes
  17. Member

    To me, it seems as if the Trump Administration really would like to act against these thugs but they may realize they don’t have the ammunition to get them in the right position to act right now. That’s because this is a state and local matter at the moment. So illegal acts by punks and thugs against peaceful speakers in state or federal venues absent any protection from state or local authorities where they could see what is happening and this is recorded may be what is needed. We need some fiery conservative speakers at Berkeley.

    • #17
    • September 13, 2017 at 8:38 pm
    • 1 like
  18. Member

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    To me, it seems as if the Trump Administration really would like to act against these thugs but they may realize they don’t have the ammunition to get them in the right position to act right now. That’s because this is a state and local matter at the moment. So illegal acts by punks and thugs against peaceful speakers in state or federal venues absent any protection from state or local authorities where they could see what is happening and this is recorded may be what is needed. We need some fiery conservative speakers at Berkeley.

    Ben Shapiro is coming up shortly, and Milo has organized a four day event with speakers that have been previously shutdown by Antifa. Both this month.

    • #18
    • September 13, 2017 at 8:42 pm
    • 3 likes
  19. Contributor
    Henry Racette Post author

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    We need some fiery conservative speakers at Berkeley.

    Bob, I think that is exactly right, and what I’ve been saying for awhile. We need to talk more, and to be more … challenging … to our friends on the left.

    There is a vast difference between saying challenging things and punching someone. We have to stay on the right side of that line, but speak our minds forcefully and unapologetically.

    Fortunately, the left gives us lots of ammunition. Modern feminism, the trans movement, socialism, trigger words, petulant anti-Americanism: they’re embracing all kinds of nonsense, things most people reject when they pause to think about them. We should focus our attention on those, and let the leftists demonstrate their lack of self-control so everyone can see.

    • #19
    • September 13, 2017 at 8:44 pm
    • 2 likes
  20. Coolidge

    EJHill (View Comment):
    Social Justice is not about justice, it’s about revenge, power and intimidation. Justice is about individuals, Social Justice is a mixture of voodoo, belief in karma and quixotic fantasy that “making an example” of someone will stop whatever egregious wrong is alleged to have happened from ever happening again to anyone – ever.

    Thanks for providing the definitive definition of Social Justice. I’ve been searching for this for quite a while.

    • #20
    • September 14, 2017 at 7:18 am
    • Like
  21. Member

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Sure. But it would be better if we didn’t. It would be better if we responded with the least force required, and used the law and the courts instead.

    Because otherwise the press will simply conflate the violence, portraying both sides as equally guilty. That’s what they’ve done already, and it doesn’t serve us well.

    There are way too many conservatives, perhaps not a majority but far too many, who are eager to knock heads and give antifa the martyrific role. It may come from watching too much teevee and not reading enough history. Hard to say.

    • #21
    • September 17, 2017 at 7:52 pm
    • Like