Here is a first: I agree with the both Daily Local’s conservative and liberal syndicated columnists of the day, and the liberal and I both agree with Rand Paul!
I guess the Daily Local would have to pay extra to put the columns online (no column by either writer is dated after 12/12) but of course one can hunt them down online.
Linda Chavez (author of An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal), writes in “Conservatives and Citizenship” (her own title) that
Conservatives should not want a country in which substantial numbers of those who reside here will eschew participating in the civic life of the country, with its obligations as well as its rights. Living here and enjoying the fruits of all this country offers should impose certain duties. …
Instead of standing athwart history and yelling stop, conservatives should be at the forefront of helping those who gain legal status to become fully American. Conservatives should be doing everything they can to teach these newcomers English, to help them learn American history and civics, to imbue them with a sense of love for and devotion to their new country. …
I would add that the two-class system of employment–those who can exercise legal rights and those who can’t or don’t dare–drives down working conditions and pay for all, while driving up profits for employers who choose to go the illegal route.
Second case in point: Susan Estrich (a Clinton insider), “Drone Law” (her title), 3/8/13:
…Paul is right to be standing there, as a legislator, raising a hue and cry about constitutionality, which is the responsibility of every elected official to consider and respect. In doing so, he reminds us to look in the mirror, to take seriously what we are dancing around, to ask ourselves what it means that such questions are now being asked and what should guide us, or what we need to claim as guides, in answering them.
In short, if we can’t define all of the requirements that must be met for the use of a drone, here or abroad, at least we can focus on the process stuff and insist that there be debate and policy, attention to detail, legal justification, and even judges and warrants to make clear how carefully such decisions must be made….
In “Court upholds rule of law and adultBasic Care,” 3/6/13, I see the drone issue reflecting the same principle as the PA Governor’s abolition of a legally mandated health care program: who is in charge, and can the executive branch override the legislative branch and constitution?
Whatever the current administration might understand by “extraordinary circumstance,” would the next administration be bound by it? Can President X just decree, like Governor Corbett, that something is too expensive, or too inconvenient, or whatever, maybe invoking the 37th president, Richard Nixon, who said: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”?…
Whether we are on the right or the left politically, without the rule of law, we have no legal rights and no duly enacted policies. And if the state doesn’t understand that, it’s the role of the courts to straighten it out.
As I noted in an update,
And what, by the way, does “not engaged in combat” mean?
just as Estrich asks:
what does “not engaged in combat” exactly mean? Not a member of al-Qaida?
It’s the job of bloggers, the public, and most importantly elected officials to be skeptical–and not just of what is said by “the other side” in our eternal culture and government divide.
The conservative site Newsmax posted Estrich’s column. For the sake of dialogue and truth conservatives and liberals alike must speak out when, however temporarily, they agree with each other.