The Obama administration is at it again, although given the recent spate of scandals triggered by this administration, I wonder whether Mr. Obama is aware of these. In fact, there's no link between the two. Only when you consider the ramifications on constitutional rights and the duty to protect and defend the Constitution is there a link.
The first case comes from California. There, an illegal immigrant not only graduated law school and passed the bar exam, but he's being admitted to the state bar there despite the fact that he is knowingly and willingly violating our immigration laws. In it's infinite lack of wisdom, the state of California has enacted a law to allow such people to be licensed attorneys in that state. Ordinarily, I'd be outraged simply at the state of California, but the Department of Justice, in a stunning departure from its duty of enforcing our country's laws, has decided that since the state has enacted this law, it's not going to contest this person's right to practice law.
This is the same DOJ that is considering going after those who smoke pot in states that have legalized the drug. Apparently, DOJ has a buffet-style approach to the application and enforcement of law.
The cynic in me has a take on this, which I'll reveal later, but DOJ's waffling on pot smokers queers my thought just a bit.
Meanwhile, a group of nuns is contesting that part of Obamacare that requires them to provide birth control coverage to their employees. The nuns balk understandably because artificial birth control is against their beliefs. DOJ is opposing their efforts to obtain a waiver of this provision. I can't even imagine what DOJ's argument is, given the fact that it's a First Amendment issue. Yet DOJ has chosen to oppose the nuns yet won't oppose California's law as being violative of federal immigration law.
It would seem to me, both as an attorney and as a citizen, that a person who is clearly in violation of a federal statute has no business being licensed to practice law. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, its laws and the laws of whatever state in which we're licensed. It is inimical to me how an attorney sworn to uphold the law can do so when he's in direct violation of a federal statute. Moreover, for the federal government to turn a blind eye because of the panacea of a state law allowing such a thing is scabrous argument at best.
Then, to turn on the nuns who are only exercising their First Amendment rights not to have their religious beliefs limited or threatened by governmental interference is amazing to me. On the one hand, there's a group of legal citizens exercising their rights under the Constitution. On the other is an admitted violator of federal laws. So DOJ sides with the violater and opposes the citizens. That makes no sense whatsoever and smacks of selective prosecution. The cynical viewpoint, to which I alluded above, is that illegal immigrants are more likely to vote liberal than are nuns, who are more likely to vote conservative, so going after the nuns runs no risk while going after the illegal-immigrant-success-story could hamper efforts to gain a larger share of the Latino vote. I doubt that the thinking is that Machiavellian, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me if it were true. Whatever the motivations, this does nothing to instill confidence that an fair and equitable application and enforcement of the laws is happening at DOJ under this president.
---------------------
Apropos of nothing above, what is it with Republicans and bridges. From Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere to Chris Christie's Bridgegate affair, shouldn't Republicans just avoid bridges altogether?
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
No comments:
Post a Comment