Surrender Today to Fight Tomorrow?

Mine is not a political blog. It’s simply designed to help me tell my story. But I do have a strong interest in politics, and sometimes I notice some commonalities between my situation and the world of politics. For example, this morning I was watching the U.S. House of Representatives. They were discussing the question of whether the President can overrule a Congressional subpoena.

In my opinion, the Constitution is clear on this matter. The sovereign power of the United States government lies in the hands of the Congress, not the President. The Congress can actually go so far as to remove the President from office. The President holds no such authority over the Congress. As clear as this seems to me though, I’ll admit that I might be wrong in my interpretation. But that question itself is not the main point I want to make here.

I don’t know the full details, but it appeared that if they approved the bill being debated, that would not have necessarily forced the President to do as they said. Rather, it would have likely forced it to a court ruling. One Congressman (Lincoln Diaz-Balart, I believe) spoke against the bill. I would summarize his remarks as follows.

Perhaps we do have the right to subpoena persons against the President’s wishes. But if this issue goes to court, and we lose there, then we have lost that right for all time. Therefore, I suggest that we vote against this bill, allowing the president to over rule us this time, so that we might still preserve this important right of ours (Congress) for the future.

Now for my analogy. Suppose I look out the window and see three drug dealers standing in my yard. I want to go out and tell them to leave. But I realize that, since I’m outnumbered, I might lose the argument. If I do lose, then I have shown that I am not able to protect my own property. I have therefore issued an open invitation for other drug dealers to come here as well.

So I rationalize the situation. I convince myself that by not fighting (and losing) today, I have preserved my ability to assert my rights some time in the future. But is this really correct? By not asserting my rights today, have I not effectively sent the same message as if I fought and lost. Will not all the drug dealers now begin to flock to my property. It doesn’t matter to them if my acquiescence is because I’m unable to fight, or just unwilling. By failing to assert my rights, haven't I acknowledged that such rights really don’t exist?

It seems to me that this is what Congressman Diaz-Balart was suggesting they do. “Don’t fight today, because we might lose.” But he neglected to mention that by not fighting at all, the same results would occur as if they fought and lost. As I said, I might be wrong in my interpretation of the law. Regardless, it seems that this is an important enough issue that it should be forced to a definitive decision.

Any thought on this matter?

Cory Hart: Never Surrender

Especially when you're fighting for your rights

or your home