I am sympathetic to the argument that President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to build a wall would set a dangerous precedent that would then be abused by the Democrats to carry out radical gun control or global warming measures.
The problem with the argument is that I don't think we're at a point in history where there's anything to restrain them from doing it anyway.
We just came off an administration that unilaterally passed its own version of illegal alien amnesty. And that illegal amnesty was then backed up by Democrat judges who have been insisting that Trump must abide by it.
This behavior had no precedent. But, much like ObamaCare's abuse of reconciliation, it happened anyway.
If this were the Clinton administration which, as bad as it was in certain areas worked with Republicans and respected certain basic laws, precedents and public opinion, I would say that it's a legitimate concern.
Obama completely broke the rule of law to force a radical agenda down America's throat. And did so with judicial backing.
There's no reason to think that a future Dem in the White House won't be pushing a more radical agenda. The brakes are off the Left.
If we can build a wall now, it may help stop Texas from going the way of California, which would hand the Dems a permanent White House slot. And then we would pine for the moderate governance of Barack Obama.
So I'm sympathetic to the argument, but I don't think it applies anymore. Precedents don't matter. There's a radical left at the wheel that will do anything it can to get its way, regardless of the norms, precedents or rule of law. It has the full backing of its judges and the media.
And it has to be fought on those terms.
Anything else is a failure to deal with reality.