Rep. Jamie Raskin has stated that federal employees may refuse to follow orders they deem unlawful, emphasizing that the definition of “unlawful” is determined by bureaucrats rather than the courts. This approach creates a system where unelected officials can override presidential decisions.
The argument centers on the idea that public servants swear an oath to the Constitution, not a party, ensuring a stable government that carries out the will of the American people, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. However, Raskin’s position suggests that some faceless paper-pusher in a federal building can unilaterally decide what is “unlawful,” bypassing the courts and giving an activist at Homeland Security a license to ignore a direct command to secure our southern border.
The real-world stakes of this philosophy are catastrophic, with potential for vital missions to be torpedoed by political allegiances. An order to deport criminal aliens, enforce federal law, or negotiate a critical trade deal could be stalled forever by insubordinate staff, creating a government frozen by internal mutiny.
Raskin’s entire argument is a Trojan horse, presenting the idea that no one should obey an illegal order. However, he dodges the billion-dollar question: who decides what’s “unlawful”? In his fantasy world, it’s not the courts. The focus on a partisan EPA employee empowering to unilaterally kill an executive order on American energy independence highlights the risks of this approach.
This rhetoric demands immediate censure and a full investigation into this plot to incite insurrection within our own federal agencies. A representative who openly encourages federal employees to defy the Commander-in-Chief is attacking the very foundation of our government.
