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.
- 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.
One reasons why Leftists in Congress seem so cavalier about ignoring our basic, founding documents - even though they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution - is because the Constitutionality of a law cannot be immediately challenged, the process usually takes years, and they know they can get away with it.
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.
"Fact" is a problem word. It mostly means "things I want veryveryveryvery much for people to believe!!" There follows a lot of propaganda.
Because of this problem I have gone to the word "reality," which Phillip K. Dick defined as what is left whether you like it or not after you stop believing in it. I think there is a lot of opinion in your piece --- I've seen a lot of lists of "facts" on this forum and usually it's a list of what people wish were true. Whatever true means.
First claim:
- 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.
It may be the LAW, but all too plainly it's not the facts on the ground. On the ground people are debating constantly whether we should be border-free and let everybody crowd in here. Maybe there SHOULD not be debate, but there clearly is. That the law should be enforced is just an opinion, and I think it's clear that the law is being WILDLY ignored, to the point of flying illegals who get in all over the country! I'm not too impressed with the effect of "should" on "facts."
- 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.
Huh, there is a call to revoke the death penalty? I missed that. I agree with your logical statement that it IS legal, though I do not see where the Constitution REQUIRES it. It only says you can't interfere with life, liberty, or property without a process of law: it doesn't appear to say anyone has to take property, or liberty, or life. For that reason, yeah, they could suppress the death penalty.
I myself think it should be expanded hugely, and not for deterrence, but for eliminating people who cannot stop taking people's stuff or hurting people. I would go further: never mind "cannot stop," that implies a third-strike kind of thing. I'd say if the evidence is clear, which it usually is, that the dealth penalty within a week of a very fast, brief trial for most crimes would save this country.
- 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.
All right, and so can all laws be revisited, so that's a problem for us, women. We'll see. IMO, forcing us to spend 18 to 20-some years raising you males' illicit get all by ourselves at our expense, not able to get a good job or a husband, is a way to keep women DOWN and that is IMO the whole point. These men don't care about the fetuses; if they did, they'd take care of them at least financially. They care about pounding women and getting the better of us. I sure know what I think of that: that we are going to stop you.
- 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.
I don't see how you can say the president "lacks the power" when corporations all over the country have been getting ready to lose a lot of employees (they'd certainly lose me!) by Jan. 4 when they have to go to a whole lot of expense to implement this mandate or be fined. You say Biden can do that for government contractors, but that was just struck down in the courts yesterday. He HAS issued the order to the public at large, and I think that is pretty awful, but we have to respect facts. You say he didn't have the power: but he clearly did. He did it. That's how we know he had the power. Maybe they'll strike it all down, but in the meantime he's persuaded a lot of people to set up a lot of programs they may never use, verifying, firing, etc. So he did have the power. We gave him that power. People never have power in themselves: people give it to them. That's why they fall so hard and fast, when the people suddenly take it back. One can only hope.
- 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.
Again, you say something is NOT open to debate which is
constantly being debated nevertheless. This sounds like a "should" argument, which is not at all useful. "Should" is an opinion, certainly not a fact. I don't know whether the U.S. Congress has power to change state election rules. Not right now, perhaps, because it hasn't tried: we will know by whether it DOES that or not. I would like a voter ID, for instance. We know whether people have power to do something by whether they do it: it's a question of facts on the ground. Shoulds don't come into it.
