This was a opposite editorial response to the article President Obama’s Attack on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by Zane Callens. This response was written by staff writer Dakota Baggett
In response to, President Obama’s Attack on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by Zane Callens, the very title is the type of misdirected arguments that people in this country devote discourse to regularly.
The biggest fallacy in this argument is placing the blame on a person who does not actually have that much power as far as making the law. Obama is nothing more than a straw man in this argument; it’s almost like we all somehow forget where law really comes from; we get caught up in the words of a man who takes credit for a law that he endorsed, but he wasn’t even able to cast a vote in the law making process. Not forgetting his veto power of course, but even that can ultimately be overridden. Obama can endorse and give himself all the credit for killing terrorists, and passing laws, but the sad fact is he really has little control over his supposed accomplishments and mistakes.
Obama may endorse an issue for whatever reason he feels like telling us, but at the end of the day he is only representing his party: the party, which nominated him for his position. For over 10 years, we have been terrified of the terrorist and proud to say that we will fight and die for our freedom.
In the scope of those 10 years, we have decided that blowing people up with missiles often is the way to handle the problem. We must remember it wasn’t Obama that we gave this power to, it was the previous guy when we let the Patriot Act slide into law. The fact that we must face as a people is that if we want to continue to blow up our enemies, we have to be responsible enough to accept the inevitable probability that the more missiles we fire, the greater chance there is of killing innocent people.
Obama may sign off on the missiles fired, but how do we really know who it is we are actually attacking? Obama sometimes can hide behind the Patriot Act; which is what he will continue to do until we create more transparency in the laws.
Now that I have spent over 300 words explaining why Obama should not be the source of all political debate, I am not saying he should not be watched. No, I am saying that they (politicians) all should be watched. The problem we face as a nation is that we have narrowed our scope of politics to focus on the simplest point; we devote all our attention to how the President uses his power, yet we fail to address who gave him the power in the first place.
Quite frankly, we argue politics the way we vote, and it shows. If we paid more attention to the laws that are getting passed and who is really passing them, then we would have a bit more transparency and accountability from the people with all the bullets. As citizens we may feel Obama is infringing upon these rights by the words that come out of his mouth.
He endorses a bill? So what? He still doesn’t make it law. Laws only get passed in one place, and the President casts no votes.
Looking at the statistics of the Congressional election in 2010 in my district (District 12) alone, it shows that 23.5 percent of the total population voted for its congressmen, or in my case, congresswoman – 1965 Texas Wesleyan alumna Kay Granger.
Yes, this is the boring part where numbers are thrown around, but these are easy numbers. According to the 2010 statistics my Congressional district represents 651,619 people; in the 2010 congressional election 152,917 people voted. Over 75 percent of the district voters either weren’t eligible or just didn’t vote that year. The numbers for the entire state are worse. In the 2010 election there was a total of 4,745,545 votes cast out of a total population of approximately 25 million people, meaning that roughly 19 percent of the state voters determined their representatives.
My response to that article is we can argue about the events in a president’s term in two ways; debate the opinions, endorsements, and cover-ups of a president, or we can debate the laws that give him the power to blow people up with remote control planes or missiles.
The fact that Obama also supports a gun control agenda in order to protect children is irrelevant to the fact our toys are not perfect at giving a correct identification of targets, but as long as we want our president to slay terrorists, he will continue to shoot missiles at them. These are the same laws that allow him to keep as classified documents anything with the word terrorist on it.
We may not like the way he uses his power, but we must remember we are the ones who make the laws that give him his power. He might have infringed on someone’s right to life, but until he starts killing Americans, he really has not infringed upon our own right to life. In fact his argument would be that he is actually protecting Americans’ right to life in both the gun agenda and the killing of innocent people, but he is getting that power from a law that has been around longer than his presidency.
As far as additional Internal Revenue Service targeting goes, the author spells it out: he even admits that no laws have been broken, and that so far absolves the Obama administration from any legal repercussions. But the two things we can do about that problem is either argue whether he is playing fair, or we can discuss how to make the laws fair.
Unfortunately, the tax rate issue is not a presidential one. He may endorse a certain tax rate, but it is Congress that ultimately sets the rate. The president’s response to that probably would be that the growing inequality gap between the wealthy and the poor shows that the rich are getting the richer while more and more people are becoming poor and poorer. At some point the poor will not be taxable.
Granted that might be some generations down the road, but when that day comes, the wealthy will be the only ones having to pay taxes, and that is not a situation anyone really wants to imagine.
The issue over Benghazi is that he is allowed to hide behind a law, which we allowed to pass during a different presidency. If we expect more transparency, then we should change the law. This one is easy for Obama to defend. Not only is he not breaking any laws, he can claim that classification of certain events is what is protecting out interests.
This article discusses Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Unfortunately, the constitution only mentions one of those concepts, but the idea that any American can secure Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness comes from the concept that we are all truly free people.
The first three words of The Constitution of the United States are “we the people” – these words give every man and woman in this Union a voice. It is a voice and an obligation to pick our lawmakers, tell them what we care about and hold them accountable for the laws that are passed.
The problem the article is addressing is not whether our president is infringing upon our rights; the problem comes from us giving up our rights when we allow laws to pass that give larger amounts of power to smaller amounts of people. This isn’t a presidential problem; this is a “we the people” problem.
None of these issues are really going to be resolved until the law makers are held accountable for the laws that are passed, and that means we need a lot more than 20 percent of the people voting for their lawmaker. We are beginning to see the long term effects of political apathy and people with the free rider mentality. The point that this response is really trying to make is that the Commander-In-Chief only has the power to enforce the laws that congress passes. We should stop debating the misuses of the laws, and start debating on how to fix them.
Photo courtesy of www.samepoint.com.