Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a man who once compared our soldiers to Nazis, said recently our Constitution was “fatally flawed from the start. It got the issue of slavery wrong. It got the issue of race, wrong.”
Durbin made this remark Feb. 26 on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He said this in the context of discussion concerning Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration, an action many have called unconstitutional. Durbin went on to excuse Obama’s illegal action, comparing it to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. He excused Obama after reminding everyone about the importance of the oath of office, one to be taken seriously, Durbin said, an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Durbin has strange ideas on how best to protect and defend the centerpiece of this republic.
Actually, our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, working together, laid the ground work for the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement that followed, all to overcome racism in this country. But we had to fight a bloody Civil War to act on that ground work, a war that claimed 600,000 lives. So one supposes we were serious about addressing the issue, contrary to beliefs held by Durbin and Obama and like-minded agents of demoralization.
Durbin and Obama should be reminded it was not secular progressives who ended slavery. It was Christians in Great Britain and America who opposed slavery, working for decades to destroy the evil practice, although slavery is still practiced today by communists and jihadists in various places. When will Durbin and Obama address modern-day slavery?
Trending: Is the Church Becoming Too Political?
The Constitution does not say anything about race. It says little about slavery. Remember, many of the Founders’ objected to both slavery and the slave trade. Fierce debates erupted over the issue. Many pressed for abolition, but many more sensed fighting off Britain to establish the country was a priority. To say the Constitution “got it wrong” makes no sense and belies an ignorance of what was happening in the colonies at the time. Although the abolition movement had not begun, passionate debates commenced as early as 1780. The Constitution did provide for counting southern slaves as three-fifths a person, not by racist impulse, but as a compromise in the apportioning of representatives to the House, a compromise with colonies in the south, one viewed as necessary in order to form the new nation.
The Constitution did provide for the return of escaped slaves to ‘owners,’ in the south, but it also applied an end date to the slave trade. Durbin ignores all the turmoil and debate and expressions of opposition at the time, preferring to simplistically and sarcastically state our Constitution was ‘fatally flawed from the beginning.’ It is more accurate to say Durbin’s analysis is ‘fatally flawed.’
Otherwise, note that executive orders are not mentioned in the Constitution. It can therefore be argued executive orders are unconstitutional. Certainly, all executive orders that completely circumvent Congress, contradicting standing law, and acting as unilateral legislative moves by the Executive have been rightly ruled illegal and unconstitutional, as in the case of Obama’s executive action recently on immigration and amnesty. A federal judge last month issued an injunction against Obama on amnesty. At one point Obama said he would ignore the court, just as he ignores the will of Congress and the will of the people. Now he appeals to the judge to overturn himself. The King speaks!
The Emancipation Proclamation was a war-time effort to defeat the south as much as it was an effort to line up the national will with the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, i.e., “…all men are created equal,” all to preserve the Union. Lincoln restricted the Proclamation to rebel states that did not recognize the federal government, states where he believed he could exercise authority in a time of war as Commander in Chief. Obviously, Obama’s illegal action on amnesty does not compare in any respect to the Emancipation Proclamation, as Durbin would have us believe.
The Emancipation Proclamation was later voted on by Congress, becoming the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Obama has no plans to involve Congress in any of his amnesty initiatives. Indeed, Obama has arrogantly proclaimed his intention to bypass Congress at every opportunity.
Durbin calls Obama ‘courageous’ for violating the law, shredding the Constitution, and promoting illegal immigration across the board. It is remarkable listening to Durbin mangle history, excuse gross illegality, misrepresent both the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation, trying to claim the moral high ground, even as promotes immorality, in the process of violating his oath.
How do you protect and defend the Constitution by ignoring it and destroying it?
It is suspected Durbin knows 55% of Americans polled on the question oppose Obama’s executive actions on amnesty, and so the Senator seeks ways of turning the voters away from the truth so Democrats and the President can continue ignoring the Constitution and the will of the people in their efforts to undermine the rule of law and import millions of illegal aliens to become Democrat voters.
Add voter fraud to the list of Democrat credits.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.