Yesterday I began posting examples of the precipitous collapse of our political, journalistic and legal systems that is leading to increasingly surreal actions and behaviors. I called these behaviors a form of lunacy, knowing that the word is overused. A day’s reflection has not found a better word, so lunacy it is. Increasingly dangerous lunacy.
In the first post I talked about Neil Abercrombie and his truly weird actions regarding the Birth Certificate Controversy.
Today the more dangerous behavior of Rahm Emanuel is the topic. Emanuel is by all logic completely ineligible to run for the mayoralty of Chicago. He does not meet the residence requirements. There is no way that he could.
He should be the object of universal scorn and derision and every news media outlet should have castigated him for even considering running. They have not. Instead, we are witnessing the failure of all three systems designed to protect us. We are falling deeper into a morass from which there may be no escape.
Our public servants are supposed to be that. They are supposed to follow laws, not trample laws they find inconvenient. Our news media is supposed to report facts and to have vigorous opinion in clearly labeled editorials. Our courts are supposed to follow laws, not find ingenious ways around them. All three all failing time and time again.
Rahm Emanuel moved to Washington D.C. He didn’t leave a stick of furniture behind, he rented out his house and he took his entire family. He didn’t come back to town regularly or, so far as anyone knows, have a mailbox. His job as chief of staff was so all-consuming that it is ridiculous to think of him as a commuter. He didn’t commute. However, he wanted the mayoralty so much he simply ran for mayor in spite of the unambiguous law against him. A decent man would have asked for a legal opinion first. I don’t believe he is a decent man. This is a very dangerous form of an entitlement mentality. It other contexts it leads to murder as a powerful person does precisely what he/she chooses because they think they can.
Our media has reported the opposition to Emanuel’s acts and it has shown some critical spine. But little outrage. Outrage is perhaps the only weapon the people have when an elected official clearly sets out to violate laws that impede his interest.
Predictably, the machine controlled election board found a loophole. Evidently, according to one argument, you don’t really move away from a place unless you “intend” to. His “intent” in moving was not really “intent” because he foresaw the possibility of moving back. Nonsese. But even the appellate bench was split and the matter has to go to the Illinois Supreme Court. One can only hope they will recognize the obvious. But we can’t be certain. This is an era when the Justice Deparment sues a state (Arizona) for passing a law urging state law enforcement to act in concert with federal law. Our Justice Department has refused to enforce laws designed to protect voting precincts – even with videotaped evidence of apparent voter intimidation. This failure puts the secret ballot at risk, a key guarantor of our freedoms.
Our courts are often acting in concert with legislators who simply wish to get around laws they find inconvenient or otherwise objectionable. Look at what Congress, bureaucrats and judges have done to immigration law. As we know, Congress recently passed a health care “reform” bill whose central mandate is unconstitutional. Now they are relying on clever legal arguments to get around clear language, just as Rahm Emanuel is trying to weasel his way into the mayor’s office.
Emanuel and the other members of this administration regard law as an obstacle to be subverted, rather than a bulwark against over reaching. Many Democrats, well represented in Washington, believe they are always right and that the law should be exactly what they want it to be. Listen very carefully to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. they still choose their words carefully, but the meaning is clear. In their minds laws are simply and impediment to what they want. This is very dangerous. There are 20th Century precedents for this attitude, lots of them, and they are ugly indeed.