Forget Jade Helm and America’s invasion of America under Obama, this is how you do it
This just in:
Appearing at a Pizza Ranch in Jefferson, Iowa, Huckabee said he would “invoke the 5th and 14th amendments for the protection of every human being.”
“Would that be a huge controversy?” the former Arkansas governor asked of the amendments that provide for due process protections,“Yes,” he said.
He added, “I will not pretend there is nothing we can do to stop this.”
Pressed by a reporter as to whether that would mean using the FBI or federal forces to accomplish his goal, Huckabee refused to rule it out, saying: “We’ll see if I get to be president.”
He seems to think the troops and the FBI will just bend to his unlawful orders. At that level, I’m not sure which is the scariest possible scenario, because all of this Huckabee hot air sounds like he’s just immediately taking it as a given that his will won’t prevail in Congress, make it to his desk for signature, and survive SCOTUS. Will a Prez give an order to the Joint Chiefs that will cause them to say no? Does that refusal approach outright coup at some level? Or do they say yes, so anti-big gubmint Huck says that over this or any issue he’s willing to deploy troops against American citizens for whatever reason?
Let’s think this through. With due acknowledgment to the gravity of the subject matter to both sides of the debate, what we have here is a candidate who is expressly willing to deploy troops on American soil against American citizens on a pretense not covered under the constitution.
Huck says all citizens should be protected, so clearly he means unborn people as well in this context. Okay. But Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines “Natural Born Citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government”. To my knowledge, nothing in law addresses the citizenship status of the unborn, ergo, not citizens, regardless of where opponents/proponents fall on the personhood part of the debate.
So we have no less than two huge issues here. There’s a process to change the law to make something happen, and then enforcement. He has that completely upside down. So as much as this might appeal to his supporters, and of course it would due to deeply held convictions, are his supporters going to suddenly support the power of big government and let this genie get out of bottle? We’ve spent the last eight years hearing about how Obama’s executive orders are massive, tyrannical overreaches of legitimate presidential power, and sometimes they’ve been right. But now we’re supposed to expect that this kind of massive overreach of presidential power is acceptable just because the cause is different.
If we remember the recent hubbub about Jade Helm and the horror that would ensue, what about this? The candidate expressly states the wish to deploy troops on American soil against American citizens without first addressing the legal issues necessary to even acquire the legal authority to do so.
And for all his talk about due process, how would he determine which women approaching a Planned Parenthood clinic to have the troops shoot? The one going in for a breast cancer screening? The one going in for treatment of PCOS? The one going in to see if her cheating husband gave her syphillis? The one going in for prenatal checkups for the child she intends to keep? Where does he derive the necessary military intelligence to acquire only the right targets? By having government access to protected medical records?
Please note, at no point in this approach have I even had to weigh in on the pros/cons of the underlying debate. There’s no need. When his approach so clearly represents such a fundamental misunderstanding of law, rights, and executive power, the ONLY way he can still be considered a serious candidate is to advocate on one issue alone and throw the entirety of the Constitution out the window.
That’s what tyranny looks like.