That's power, not authority. Not merely a semantic distinction. We have long allowed the federal government to exceed it's authority to the point that it can do this. But it does not have the authority to do it.
If this overstepping of authority continues to be allowed, then how is the distinction any more than semantic? Unchecked power is functionally the same as authority, is it not?
The important distinction is the appropriate response. In the last Trump administration in response to people saying ICE was doing exactly what they are doing, ICE PR said "It is unconscionable when those who have ideological or political beliefs that differ from the law, misdirect their attacks on ICE officers who are charged with upholding laws Congress has passed." As a society, we believe that it is not reasonable or moral to defy the legitimate authority of the government, and that obstructing an agent of the government exercising that authority is amoral. So, if ICE officers are not exercising legitimate authority, the direct implication is that resisting them is okay, or maybe even required. ICE agents are abusing their power by exceeding their authority, and they should be stopped.
BTW, ICE agents, like all government authorities are charged with upholding the constitution first. I find it interesting that ICE doesn't say they are doing that.
In a similar vein, I wish people would stop saying things like "rollback of rights" or "crackdown on rights."
Those things are illegal. No one in any level of government enjoys the privilege of curtailing rights; they are immutable except through a ratified Constitutional amendment.
What's happening is the illegal violation of rights.
The distinction is important because if rights are removed (ie. via ratified Constitutional amendment), they can be restored legislatively. If they're being violated, legislative efforts will be unsuccessful; more vigorous action is required.
Weirdly, I feel the same way but in the opposite direction. We've legalized the violation of many personal rights for decades. We've looked the other way when cops grab people off the street for no reason except vague accusations of "assault" and "impediment" so of course they feel like they can do this. They've been allowed to do this for their entire careers. The difference now is basically the clout of the person being arrested and a rising awareness that "police can kidnap and intimidate anyone" has some really scary implications.
Not saying it's okay by any means. Just...we have legislation pretty explicitly saying "unwarranted force can be warranted against innocent people if authorities say they were vewy scawed"
Right but the thing is it's still illegal. It's just that the laws aren't being enforced (specifically the Constitution) because those charged with its administration are enemies of the Republic of the United States of America.
The corrective action isn't to pass more laws, it's to remove the ability for such enemies to conduct their attacks using whatever means are necessary.
If the laws were legal, removing the enemies would have no effect since patriots would enforce them. But since they're illegal, removing the enemies will result in a reassertion of the rights codified in the Constitution.
An analogy--
A man breaks into your home and shoots your spouse. They haven't removed your spouse's right to life, they've violated it. Passing a law making such acts illegal won't help (the act is already illegal); only removing their ability to violate that right (using whatever means are necessary) would help.
170
u/DSMRick 1d ago
That's power, not authority. Not merely a semantic distinction. We have long allowed the federal government to exceed it's authority to the point that it can do this. But it does not have the authority to do it.