Were those tears streaming down Lady Liberty’s face upon the news of the Donald’s edict banning Muslim immigrants from the shores of the United States? Did she seem to be standing less resolutely, perhaps bent slightly in a depressive hunch? Was that her reaction to this latest of his campaign promises to “Make America Great Again,” or were the American people collectively projecting onto our great symbol of freedom and liberty their own dismay and sadness at the cruelty on display of our nation’s highest official?

While it is not unprecedented for the United States government to ban one group of people from our shores because it doesn’t like them (witness the ban of the Chinese and Japanese in the early 20^th century), since at least 1965 such immigration bans on the basis of religion, national origin, ethnicity, race, or gender have been forbidden by Congress. So, how is the Donald getting away with such an illegal act? Simply because he is President or is it he does not trust a Republican Congress to carry out its duty and pass legislation?

Granted, Congress’ recent history on that duty has been less than exemplary, but now that one party holds all the reins of power, one would think the Donald would be content to give Congress time to carry out its duty. Yet, he is not. He is acting like some power-drunk potentate issuing proclamations and edicts as if he believes he is the one who has the sole right to legislate, carry out the legislation, and rule on its constitutionality. In other words, the Donald is acting as if he is an omnipotent king, or lest one dare say it . . . a God.

Is that what less than one-half of the electorate voted for? Is that what we as a nation want, to throw away our constitution with its strict delimiting of powers of the various branches of government and the states and replace it with an all-powerful dictator? Clearly, it would seem by his actions, that this very result is what the Donald had in mind when he ran for the presidency. I question, however, if that is what the people had in mind; certainly, the more than half of the electorate who voted for Hillary Clinton did not have that result in mind, or perhaps that is exactly what they feared would happen and was one further reason they cast their votes against the Donald.

Of course, one could argue, and I’m sure many rabid Republicans would, that the Donald is not doing anything different from his immediate and past predecessors to hold the office of President. There is some truth to this; President Obama, especially in his second term, relied heavily on Presidential edicts to effect the change he wanted to see, but to be fair he did not do so because he wanted to usurp the Congressional function, but rather acted precisely because Congress had shown ever since 2010 a complete unwillingness to carry out its function to legislate, despite President Obama’s many entreaties to do so. It would have been one thing for Congress to not legislate because it disagreed with the President’s ideas and agenda. But this clearly was not the case, especially when he propounded legislative ideas his antagonists in Congress—the Republicans—had propounded themselves previously. No, Congress refused to carry out its duty to legislate so Republicans could demonstrate the contempt they felt toward Obama as President and as a person. This was never more evidently clear than in the refusal of the Republican Senate leadership to consider Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court nearly a full year in advance of the end of Obama’s second term of office. It was for this reason that Obama issued his edicts.

Is the shoe on the other foot, now? Is the Donald in issuing his edicts without legislation preceding them, conveying his contempt for Congress?

One could say that President Obama overstepped his authority in issuing edicts without Congress having first passed legislation on the subjects. Many Republican members of Congress in fact cried foul at what they saw as Obama’s usurpation of Congressional prerogative. They were well within their rights to do so. By the same token, however, shouldn’t they also be castigating their own President for doing exactly what his predecessor did about which they complained? Or by their silence and agreement are they communicating that what they complained about is in fact okay when one of their own does it?

This would seem to be the case, and as such, it seems Congress is very willing to have its function usurped when it is one of their own doing the usurping. If this is the case, the members of Congress are playing with fire because they may find that one day they will awaken to find that the person to whom they willingly deferred and passed their function and who holds them in contempt has burned down their house and has left them with nothing but empty titles to their names.

Perhaps this simple but plain fact was the reason why Lady Liberty was really shedding her tears recently, and not so much that her presence as a beacon of freedom to the world has been lost amongst the fearmongering and hatred on display in the form of a Presidential edict. Certainly, the Donald’s illegal Presidential edict to ban Muslims from our shores would be grounds enough for her tears, but something much more profound is happening as the Donald propounds his Presidential edicts and for which more than likely Lady Liberty is shedding her tears: we, like lobsters in water being slowly brought to a boil, are witnessing and experiencing our constitutionally-based system of government of the people, by the people, and for the people perishing from this earth.