- Kansas Moran’s response to a constituent
- Moran’s letter is a good example of the hobgoblined minds of some ersatz constitutionalists
“I try never to let anyone down”
(Except maybe my Party’s president)
Here is how my Republican senator responded to a constituent who expressed his disappointment in the senator’s disgraceful sellout of his constituents and the American people in voting to oppose his Party’s president’s effort to secure our border in the face of a clear national emergency.
Senator Moran has always distinguished himself as a wholly-owned ‘asset’ of the Washington establishment and of a weak Republican state committee (Kansas).
I would urge readers to consider “Jerry’s” first four points in his response to constituents defending his vote for the Democrat-inspired resolution:
•”President Trump is correct, there is a need for better border security.”
•”Our borders are a matter of national sovereignty and control over who enters our country is vital in our fight against terrorism and battle against drugs and human trafficking.”
•“The President has not been fairly treated by Democrats in Congress a wall is not immoral and democrats have previously supported funding border barriers.”
AND SO, HE VOTED AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND TO OPPOSE HIS EFFORTS!
AND, THUS, THIS IS HOW “JERRY” CONCLUDES HIS MESSAGE:
•“This country is filled with people who care, who are patriots, who served in our military. I try never to let anyone down. On my watch I always want to do right as I see it”.
— JERRY
The full text of his communication is set forth below, our additional response follows that. DLH
Voting to Uphold the Constitution
I share President Trump’s goal of securing our borders as such, I have introduced legislation and voted many times for greater funding for border security, including President Trump’s border wall but expanding the powers of the presidency beyond its constitutional limits is something I cannot support.
Upon my election to public office, I take one oath: an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I believe the use of emergency powers in this circumstance violates the Constitution. Allowing the use of such power establishes a precedent for future presidents to further act against laws and appropriations approved by Congress. This continues our country down the path of all powerful executive something those who wrote the Constitution were fearful of.
On Thursday, I voted to support the Emergency Declaration Resolution of Disapproval. Before casting my vote, I wrote out my thoughts on how I came to this decision. Click here to see my hand-written thoughts, or read the transcript below.
1. President Trump is correct, there is a need for better border security.
2. Our borders are a matter of national sovereignty and control over who enters our country is vital in our fight against terrorism and battle against drugs and human trafficking.
3. Many Americans and most Kansans agree with the President that this is an important issue and must be dealt with.
4. The President has not been fairly treated by Democrats in Congress a wall is not immoral and democrats have previously supported funding border barriers.
5. I have introduced legislation and voted many times for greater funding for border security, including President Trump’s border wall.
6. The President can advance the building of a wall with the funding just approved by Congress and can increase the funds available by reprogramming other accounts.
7. Therefore, the declaration of an emergency is not necessary.
8. The declaration of an emergency under these circumstances is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The laws passed by Congress years ago allowing the president emergency powers is flawed and needs to be repealed or amended.
9. In high school government class we all learned about our Founding Fathers and the three separate, but equal branches of government. This concept is one of the most significant in protecting America as a republic and maintaining citizen freedoms & liberties. Both government structure and the Bill of Rights matter.
10. Upon my election to public office, I take one oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I believe the use of emergency powers in this circumstance violates the Constitution.
11. Allowing the use of such power establishes a precedent for future presidents to further act against laws and appropriations approved by Congress. This continues our country down the path of all powerful executive something those who wrote the Constitution were fearful of.
12. Kansans have criticized President Obama for abuse of executive orders, ignoring the laws and avoiding the requirements of negotiating a treaty when dealing with foreign powers. I agree and fought it.
13. I aggressively opposed the overreach of past presidents and believe that I can not pick and choose to now look the other way.
14. If the Constitution means one thing in the Obama administration and another in the Trump administration, the enduring value of the Constitution disappears and another generation of Americans will be less free.
15. The number one responsibility we have as American citizens is to pass to the next generation of Americans our constitutionally guaranteed liberties. There are days where it seems clear we are failing greatly.
16. How we do things even good things matters. We were raised that the ends don’t justify the means.
17. To find a loop hole on this issue and to vote another way might be an easier course. But my gut, my intellect, my understanding of history, tells me use of emergency powers is wrong. It can’t be an option to support something I believe wrong.
18. This country is filled with people who care, who are patriots, who served in our military. I try never to let anyone down. On my watch I always want to do right as I see it. -Jerry
Sovereignty at risk, national defense is not a loop hole
We note that several of the Sewernator’s, Swampator’s, Senator’s points are regurgitations of the theme “letting Trump issue an executive order on the matter would be a bad precedent that Democrats would adopt and run with to the detriment of so many issues important to conservatives”
That horse was long-ago saddled, mounted, and spurred out of the barn by Democrats. They need no precedent, indeed abide by none they find inconvenient. There is no moral or higher ground or principled argument that cannot properly be driven home other than by making your opponent live by the rules they decided to make since they disregarded your arguments. But even that is an aside in this case as protecting national borders is a crucial job for a President, one he is Constitutionally sworn to faithfully do. Would that Obama would have done so.
Competent authorities have defended the use of executive authority in this case as lawful (in terms of such an executive order being consistent with existent statutory authority granted by Congress) and Constitutional. See our posts and references here, here and here, among others.
As to consistency with existing statutory grants of such authority that seems undebatable. However if Congress wants to limit the authority it granted to presidents then do so by accumulating sufficient support, enough to overcome a likely and appropriate veto if it encompasses hamstringing a Trump from performing his sworn duty.
The Constitutional authority and obligation of a President is clear. Article II Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Further the President takes an oath prescribed by the Constitution in Article II Section 1: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Does Senator Moran seriously contend that protecting the border is not a national defense matter, indeed a fair summation of the concept, under which the President as commander in chief may direct the armed forces to prioritize including to redirect funds and manpower to accomplish? (One also wonders if the good Senator believes that NORAD exists for no purpose other than to confirm Santa Clause is on the way once a year and that the Coast Guard and Border Patrol are not executive agencies, human barriers of a sort. Or perhaps he thinks borders are merely soft civil matters of no consequence to remaining a free country)
Senator Moran contends that “The President can advance the building of a wall with the funding just approved by Congress and can increase the funds available by reprogramming other accounts.” Senator Moron Moran that is essentially what Trump is doing — trying to do so citing authority and imparting a solid legal basis to best avoid the malcontents of the left who would say THOSE funds are not authorized for such purposes. He is invoking unambiguous legal and Constitutional authority. Moron Moran would rather put Trump and the nation hostage to Democrats using the “homie Court” advantage to tie the effort up as millions more illegals transit the border.
And about this utter self-serving crap:
Moran:
15. The number one responsibility we have as American citizens is to pass to the next generation of Americans our constitutionally guaranteed liberties. There are days where it seems clear we are failing greatly.
Millions of illegals have and are continuing to cross the border with no grounding in or even cursory appreciation of our constitutional republic, respect for national sovereignty or even in the concept of a nation state. Many of them are violent criminals, some terrorists and all of them frauds and Moran issues such utter self-righteous bs about protecting the next generation?
Current generations are in the process of having their financial security, their freedoms compromised, their nation invaded as a result of Moran’s (and the others) poor grounding in concepts, and wool-gathering if not subservience to special interests. The next generation under such pathetic irresponsibility will have their liberties subject to grinding burdens if not ended by the “necessity” of what has been wrought by such lack of seriousness.
Veritas PAC
