I get the impression that Leftists, at all levels, are unable or unwilling to differentiate between fact and opinion. And it is difficult and frustrating to debate Leftists because they refuse to countenance this difference. Allow me to provide a few examples on common debating points.
The Constitution and the laws are what they are. We can debate whether they are well-considered, wise, or enforceable, but we cannot simply presume that they can be rewritten or ignored on a whim.
- It is rational to debate whether or not it is good policy to have a relatively porous southern border on the U.S. There are reasons that support that view and reasons that run counter to it. But there should be no debate that the EXISTING immigration laws should be enforced, to the extent that the Executive Branch has the ability to do so. If "we, the people" want to change the immigration laws, there is a process that must be gone through; until then, the law should be enforced as written. This is not a debating point; it is the law.
- We can debate whether the Death Penalty is a good idea. Opinions are all over the lot on this question. But there should be no debate on the issue of whether the U.S. Constitution permits the death penalty, as currently written. If you can't be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law, then presumably if you have due process of law, then you can be deprived of life - and the Constitution is fine with it. You can take your "evolving standards" and apply them to things that are not spelled out, but the death penalty is expressly sanctioned in the Constitution. It cannot be done away with because a group of black-robed outlaws think it should be.
- We can debate whether and to what extent women should have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, but the notion that somewhere in the Constitution, this "right" is enshrined - and can never again be re-visited, is simply a delusion. It is "judge-made law," which can always be revisited.
- We can debate whether it is a good idea for "Government" to mandate things like masks, vaccines, and interpersonal behavior in response to a public health threat, but there should be no question that the President lacks the power to issue such general decrees on his own authority. This is absurd. He may have the power to do so in government agencies, or among government contractors (for which contractors can demand compensation), but to issue those orders to the public at large, no way.
- We can debate what levels of voting and ballot security are appropriate, and what impacts any restrictions might have, but the question of who runs elections - the state legislatures and the respective Secretaries of State - is not really open to debate. It is entirely consistent with the concept of Federalism that each state will have its own rules, and the rules in some states would be unpopular or unacceptable in another state. The U.S. Congress has NO POWER to change this reality.
The Constitution and the laws are what they are. We can debate whether they are well-considered, wise, or enforceable, but we cannot simply presume that they can be rewritten or ignored on a whim.
