Writer: Trump Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Undo Obama’s Executive Orders
Apparently anyone with a keyboard can write op-eds for the Chicago Defender, and you aren’t required to back up your deep thoughts with anything so arbitrary as facts, reason, or a basic grasp of how government works. You just need to have a strong opinion about something, and they’ll slap it up on their website. That’s about the only thing that could explain Nikala McLaurin’s recent article, “The Problem in Reversing President’s Order,” which makes the extraordinary claim that Donald Trump should not be allowed to reverse, by executive order, any policies put in place – through executive order – by his predecessor, Barack Obama.
McLaurin’s justification is something to behold.
“When altering or removing orders made by previous presidents, there should be limitations on those new executive orders,” she writes, coming to a theory that, strangely enough, did not occur to her when Obama was in office. Why? Well, she explains that, too.
“Most, if not all of Obama’s changes benefited the majority of the nation, not just one particular race or economic class,” she writes. “In contrast, Donald Trump has signed several executive orders disregarding the wishes of the majority of American citizens.”
As examples, she cites his decision to partially roll back the “normalized” relations with Cuba and, remarkably, Trump’s executive order on guns.
“One of the first regulations that Trump opposed was Obama’s executive order on gun control,” she reminds her readers. “Obama made it mandatory that information be released on those who are mentally ill and included in background checks, making it impossible for those with certain diagnoses to buy guns. With all the senseless killing, including those of infants and children done by those who are mentally ill, a more strict gun policy would be effective, but Trump nullified Obama’s rule. Even though not all people with mental illnesses are violent and harmful, Obama was taking an extra step of precaution to decrease gun violence in America.”
So because McLaurin and, presumably, her liberal friends, do not agree with Trump’s decisions, she has come to the conclusion that executive orders should be reserved solely for Democrats.
“Limitations to this power is necessary because millions of people’s lives are being altered for the worse just to please one person and their supporters,” she says. “American citizens do not deserve to have their basic human rights taken away from them because one group of people feel it would benefit them better.”
We couldn’t agree more, which is why it’s odd to see McLaurin support Obama’s executive order on guns. Nor can we quite understand how Trump trampled the human rights of Americans by rolling back the Cuba policies. And we can only assume that McLaurin misses the fact that “just one person and their supporters” also constitutes “millions of people’s lives.” Perhaps she believes that Trump was elected to the presidency thanks solely to 15 or 16 Breitbart employees.
This isn’t to pick on McLaurin as much as it is to demonstrate the typical thinking of a liberal Democrat, which develops thanks to an intensely-opaque bubble where every progressive policy is “good” and every conservative policy is “evil.” Most liberal pundits are just a little better at hiding it than she is, that’s all.