He’s Aiming At The 2nd
Obama Threatens Constitution
Posted: January 12, 2013
Mark Levin is right. The voluble and acerbic radio talk-show host says this nation not only is hurtling toward a “fiscal cliff,” but also may be careening toward a “constitutional cliff.”
Mr. Levin tendered this trenchant observation about Vice President Joe Biden’s comments on Wednesday shortly before huddling with victims of gun violence.
“There are executive orders,” the vice president said, “there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Is there anything alarming in this declaration? Yes. Are we being overly alarmist in expressing the dangers therein to constitutional government? The assembled worthies at CNN certainly think so.
Earlier this week, the CNN Gang gleefully chided another conservative talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh, for voicing the same concern. Certainly, they said, almost laughing as they did so, an executive order cannot override the Constitution. Nor, they added, can the White House institute an assault-rifle ban without Congress first taking action. Their intimation: Any fool would know that.
Well, talk about preaching to the choir. We do know that, as do Messrs. Levin and Limbaugh. That’s precisely the reason why we found Mr. Biden’s words so jarring. Could this administration, flush with success and hubris, actually be pondering such a constitutional end run?
Hence CNN doth not protest enough — as it would if presented this scenario, as posed by Mr. Limbaugh: Suppose at some point in the Bush 43 presidency, Vice President Dick Cheney said to reporters: “We think too many unborn children are being killed in America. There are simply too many abortions, more than a million a year. So we’ve decided to do something about it — preferably through legislation, though we’ve not ruled out an executive order.”
You know what? There would have been hell to pay at CNN (as well as in other journalistic precincts), as commentators would have been spewing and sputtering and falling over themselves in deep indignation and outrage. But today, when the Second Amendment is targeted? Their implied message to the likes of Messrs. Levin and Limbaugh (and us): “This is ridiculous. Get over your bad selves.”
But is it ridiculous, given President Obama’s past flirtations with executive action in lieu of congressional inaction — and especially given the notion that this administration feels armed (pun intended) with some sort of “Newtown mandate?”
The White House fervor — or fever? — in this regard is almost palpable. In that same interview Wednesday, Mr. Biden said, “I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
But what’s “responsible?” National registration of all firearms, with background checks for all gun-owners? An outright ban on all semiautomatic weapons, or at least those labeled “assault rifles”?
We understand that, with images of Newtown still seared in the nation’s conscience, such a ban makes great
good sense to many folks. Their question: Why would anyone feel the need to own such a firearm?
Well, as Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich points out, try selling that line of thought to those Korean merchants for whom a clearly visible rifle (like an AR-15) was the only thing that kept body and soul together — and their businesses from being torched — during the L.A. riots of 1992. In that instance, a simple pistol would have done little good.
Preservation of life and property — that’s why we have a Second Amendment.
Mr. Levin tendered this trenchant observation about Vice President Joe Biden’s comments on Wednesday shortly before huddling with victims of gun violence.
“There are executive orders,” the vice president said, “there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Is there anything alarming in this declaration? Yes. Are we being overly alarmist in expressing the dangers therein to constitutional government? The assembled worthies at CNN certainly think so.
Earlier this week, the CNN Gang gleefully chided another conservative talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh, for voicing the same concern. Certainly, they said, almost laughing as they did so, an executive order cannot override the Constitution. Nor, they added, can the White House institute an assault-rifle ban without Congress first taking action. Their intimation: Any fool would know that.
Well, talk about preaching to the choir. We do know that, as do Messrs. Levin and Limbaugh. That’s precisely the reason why we found Mr. Biden’s words so jarring. Could this administration, flush with success and hubris, actually be pondering such a constitutional end run?
Hence CNN doth not protest enough — as it would if presented this scenario, as posed by Mr. Limbaugh: Suppose at some point in the Bush 43 presidency, Vice President Dick Cheney said to reporters: “We think too many unborn children are being killed in America. There are simply too many abortions, more than a million a year. So we’ve decided to do something about it — preferably through legislation, though we’ve not ruled out an executive order.”
You know what? There would have been hell to pay at CNN (as well as in other journalistic precincts), as commentators would have been spewing and sputtering and falling over themselves in deep indignation and outrage. But today, when the Second Amendment is targeted? Their implied message to the likes of Messrs. Levin and Limbaugh (and us): “This is ridiculous. Get over your bad selves.”
But is it ridiculous, given President Obama’s past flirtations with executive action in lieu of congressional inaction — and especially given the notion that this administration feels armed (pun intended) with some sort of “Newtown mandate?”
The White House fervor — or fever? — in this regard is almost palpable. In that same interview Wednesday, Mr. Biden said, “I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
But what’s “responsible?” National registration of all firearms, with background checks for all gun-owners? An outright ban on all semiautomatic weapons, or at least those labeled “assault rifles”?
We understand that, with images of Newtown still seared in the nation’s conscience, such a ban makes great
good sense to many folks. Their question: Why would anyone feel the need to own such a firearm?
Well, as Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich points out, try selling that line of thought to those Korean merchants for whom a clearly visible rifle (like an AR-15) was the only thing that kept body and soul together — and their businesses from being torched — during the L.A. riots of 1992. In that instance, a simple pistol would have done little good.
Preservation of life and property — that’s why we have a Second Amendment.