THE AMERICAN POSEIDON ADVENTURE

Sometimes an act can be legally correct yet morally or humanely wrong. The two recent Supreme Court decisions affecting immigration may ultimately prove to be Pyrrhic victories, legally sound under the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, but costly because of their human consequences.

History provides a sobering example. In 1857, the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roger Taney, decided the Dred Scott case. The Court held that people of African descent, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court. It also ruled that Congress lacked the constitutional authority to prohibit slavery in the federal territories, effectively invalidating the Missouri Compromise.

The Court interpreted the Constitution as it understood it. Yet the decision is now remembered as one of the most damaging in American history because of its human consequences. It took the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, declaring that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States,” to overturn Dred Scott and extend the Constitution’s promises of liberty to all Americans.

Courts are not supposed to make law; they interpret the Constitution and determine the limits of governmental authority. That distinction is often blurred when the media characterize decisions such as the recent immigration rulings as “Trump administration victories.” That phrase misstates what the Court has done. The Court did not approve a particular immigration policy. Rather, it held the Office of the President possesses the constitutional authority to act in this area. The authority belongs to the office, not to the individual who temporarily occupies it.

Whether that authority is exercised wisely, compassionately, or recklessly is the responsibility of the President. If a policy inflicts unnecessary hardship, weakens our security, damages our economy, or violates our nation’s moral principles, responsibility lies with the elected official who chose that policy, not with the Court that recognized the constitutional power to implement it.

The more accurate headline would be: “The Supreme Court confirms that the President has constitutional authority to act.” Whether that authority is exercised humanely or wisely remains a political and moral question for the President and, ultimately, for the American people.

When Congress fails to fulfill its constitutional role as a meaningful check on executive power, the responsibility returns to the voters. If citizens believe a President is exercising lawful authority in ways that are harmful to the nation or inconsistent with our values, the remedy is found not in blaming the Court but in replacing the person who occupies the office.

VOTE!!!

RESIST!!! & EDUCATE!!!