Okay, in case you don’t already think this sort of micro-spying on executive decisions is ridiculous, we should recall the background of DACA. It takes the form of a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children”—and then it sets out some guidelines by which these particular illegals can register and get a temporary reprieve so that they can acquire driver’s licenses and apply for jobs without fear of deportation.

It would be a great thing were it not for one fact: President Obama only came up with this after Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, which had been before Congress in various forms since 2001. He tried to create a favored class of illegal immigrant after the legislative branch made it clear that they didn’t support that idea. He wanted to accomplish through lax enforcement what the law forbade.

This is the kind of manipulation of the system that we all swore in 2016 should never again be allowed. Remember all the articles and speeches leading up to the presidential election? They all started out, “No matter how this election turns out, we should all agree not to challenge its legitimacy and to recognize the chief executive and support him or her.” In fact, Trump and Hillary Clinton were both asked to affirm that very principle in public forums at least a dozen times.

How does that translate, a year later, into challenging a president’s right to choose his personnel and formulate his own enforcement policies? How does that further translate into actual lawsuits in which the plaintiff claims the right to, in effect, overrule the president and psychoanalyze his motives?

All five of the requests for information are asking the childish question, “Where did you get your information?”

It doesn’t matter where he got his information.

Ronald Reagan got some of his information from Joan Quigley, who was used by Nancy Reagan as the official White House astrologer. Other presidents have gotten information from mistresses, business partners, and religious leaders. There’s no constitutional amendment dealing with the right of the people to dissect the brain of the chief executive.

These lawsuits—and I’m only dealing with one batch of them—are the very definition of bad faith. They challenge the right of the president to be president. They are attempts to use the courts to shape executive decisions. Do we really intend to do this for the rest of recorded history? Are we going to look at the emails and tweets and backroom conversations of every future president before we “allow” him to make a decision?

Fortunately, the Supreme Court said that Trump doesn’t have to produce any of those documents, and sent the case back to the district court for a hearing in which the government can be heard. Let’s hope that it’s heard by someone who understands that you don’t put a man in charge and then remove the tools he needs to run things. You don’t tell the chief executive, “You can’t make that decision because you watch too much Fox News.”

I’m reminded of Lieut. Col. Owen Thursday, as portrayed by Henry Fonda in the movie Fort Apache. Despised by his men, second-guessed by his officers, he fights a losing battle against Cochise and sees most of his troops wiped out. Knocked off his horse, with the battle still raging around him, his nemesis Captain Yorke rides up to save him. (Yorke is played by John Wayne.)

“Trouble you for your sabre, Captain,” says Thursday.

“My sabre?” says the confused Yorke.

“I must rejoin my command.”

“The command is wiped out, sir, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

“I’m not asking your opinion, Captain Yorke. When you command this regiment—and you probably will—command it! Your sabre, sir.”

Yorke hands over the sabre.

“Any questions, Captain?” says Thursday as he mounts and rides off to his certain death.

“No questions,” says Yorke.

Donald Trump has a right to his command.

Daily updates with TM’s latest


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.