With little of importance happening today (and I mean that sincerely, in that the outcome of the Super Bowl will have little, if any, impact on the lives of the eighty-two million Egyptians), it seems appropriate to publish now, with a realistic expectation of a larger than usual audience searching the world-wide web for entertainment, if not enlightenment.
Also, we find the TV news shows saturated with bromides to the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan, as the nation observes the 100 anniversary of his humble birth. But before turning to events and persons having made more significant contributions to our nation's Constitutional heritage, I will note that President Reagan was a towering figure, whose confidence and powerful oratory saved the Nation from its Jimmy Carter malaise. Oh, and the little matter of winning the cold war, leading to the fall of communism.
What RR did not accomplish, however, was to restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government. During his eight years in office, this President exploded federal deficits, while undermining the Rule of Law - illegally selling arms to the terrorist Nation of Iran and using the millions of illicitly secreted dollars obtained thereby to fund the contra war in Central America. All these presidential abuses occurred only after the United States Congress had adopted a federal statute barring all federal aid to the Contra rebels.
Your humble blogger offers this cautionary tale on misguided hero worship, because I don't want to be someday facing the current situation in Egypt, in which the nation has no way to restrain the abuse of presidential power except by open rebellion. As there is no Rule of Law, no Constitution prevents the Dictator-in-Residence from serving for life before placing his elder son in power permanently. While some may scoff at the drawing of comparisons to the current uprising in the streets of Cairo, a torrent of flood waters often starts with a small meandering stream. Two apposite examples of recent White House abuses of power should suffice - (1) In June of 2010, a federal court enjoined the Administration's six month moratorium on deep water oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government's first response was to appeal, seeking a stay of the trial court decision. When the Court of Appeal's denied the stay petition, the Department of Interior acted with blatant disregard for the Rule of Law. As stated by the District Court Judge in holding the Secretary of Interior in Contempt of the Court's Order:
"... [E]ach step the government took following the Court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance. ... it continually reaffirmed its intention and resolve to restore the moratorium; it even notified operators that ... they could expect a new moratorium. Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the reimposition of a second blanket and substantially identical moratorium ... provide this Court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt."
(2) Just days earlier, a federal trial court in Florida ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act is unconstitutional. In his Opinion, the trial judge explicitly stated that an injunction against the Government was not necessary because, as his decision was premised on the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, by his Oath of Office, the President was mandated to uphold the Constitution and not continue to enforce an unconstitutional Act, irrespective of its prior enactment by Congress.
Now, setting aside the arcane (and entirely irrelevant) nuances of federal civil procedure, it is indisputable that the Administration has but one lawful recourse - it must petition the trial judge for a stay, and if refused, take an immediate appeal and seek a stay before the Court of Appeals. When that lawful strategy failed to achieve its policy goals after the Court invalidated the Gulf oil drilling moratorium, by Executive fiat, the Administration contumaciously reissued the same illegal directive, with nothing more than a new "effective date." Simple reissuance of a 2800 page ObamaCare statute might take too long for the Government Printing Office, so the Administration spokespersons have simply told us that, since ultimately the constitutionality of this law will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Administration has chosen to issue itself a non-judicial stay pending that ruling by the high court, possibly in one or two or three years.
Granted the awful winter weather being experienced thruout most of the nation and the massive protests in the streets of Cairo have been worthy of broad public attention and wide media coverage. Nonetheless, it is troubling that a President says - "I disagree with the lawful and binding decision of a federal court, and inasmuch as I expect to prevail ultimately before the Supreme Court in my appeal of this misguided ruling, my Administration will ignore it, just as if a Court of Appeals had granted us a lawful Stay. Hey, I'm the President, so if Malia wants to be our Nation's next Ruler, that's fine with me too." - and the media coverage is non-existent.
I don't know what Ronald Reagan would say about a President ignoring a Court Oder; he did, after all, ignore Congressional legislation, but I do know what Texas Congresswoman Barbara Jordan would and did say: "My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the destruction of the Constitution." (1974 Impeachment Hearings for President Nixon).
When the cold weather breaks, I do expect my Loyal Listeners to take over permanently Lafayette Square across from the White House, or at least until Malia renounces her Father's spiral downwards toward egyptian-style lawless government. In spirit, I'm sure that Barbara Jordan will be there as well, defending American Exceptionalism.