efficacy

 When your belief requires others to believe it, you might have a problem. Belief should never be a dependent thing, rather it should be independent. It is only when my belief interferes with others that it becomes a issue. That was the premise behind the separation of church and state we so strongly support here in America. The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; is the first sentence of the first amendment.  James Madison wrote that amendment after being influenced to do so by Thomas Jefferson. That Jefferson was influenced by the writings of John Locke is not debated. And what follows is a portion of John Locke writings, " The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate, because his power consists only in outward force; but true and saving religion consists in the inward persuasion of the mind, without which nothing can be acceptable to God. And such is the nature of the understanding, that it cannot be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force. Confiscation of estate, imprisonment, torments, nothing of that nature can have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment that they have framed of things." I had to look up the word efficacy as I wasn't sure of the meaning. It means the ability to create a desired result. And that is what the first amendment states as well. And isn't that what was taught in the Bible? Do not be dependent upon God, depend upon your faith to save you. The reason, I suspect, Jesus said " It is also written: do not put the lord your God to the test. " When we have firm convictions or doubts are they not our conscience? Conscience is what drives men to act. Isn't that the very reason when someone wrongs us we often say, that person has no conscience? And isn't that what law is all about? An attempt to define the boundaries of conscience? James Madison wrote, " conscience is the most sacred of properties. " He was saying how that is " property " for it is solely and completely yours, is your most valuable asset. 
 We cannot separate conscience from the man. For clarity when I say man, I mean a human being of any gender or self identified gender, or neutral gender. I just mean humanity in general. For that reason we do have these conflicts in government. Each representative acting according to their own conscience, remember you can't legislate a conscience. Still we require our legislators to follow the common conscience, what we call, the law. The question is, does holding an elected office give you the required efficacy to accomplish that? And there is that word again, efficacy. The ability to produce a desired result. In this case can we expect our legislators to set aside their conscience in favor of the common conscience? 
 That certainly seems to be the issue I see time and again. That's the reason we have executive orders. The President can act as the conscience of the nation when it becomes necessary. George Washington issued the first executive order. He did so because Congress was not in session. Of course, in that time it wasn't easy to assemble the Congress and would take some time to do so. So, Washington issued an executive order instructing Federal officers to prosecute any citizen interfering with the war between England and France. In his farewell address Washington gave some advice about using executive orders, explaining when they should be used. He said, " but let there be no usurpation, for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil, any partial or transient benefit which the use at any time yields. " 
 So, what was the advice from George? The way I read it he is saying use executive orders when it is necessary to prevent evil. They shouldn't be used to fix a temporary problem. They are not a shortcut. Now concerning the latest use of executive power I have to say I believe the President is justified in using this power. Congress has certainly has enough time to act on the situation. Setting aside the wall, barrier, or fence, whatever you wish to call it, I believe illegal immigration is a grave situation and a danger to the Republic. Set aside all the rhetoric and just assess the problem. Thousands of illegal persons entering our nation. We need to do something to curb this. And central to this issue is what? Our conscience. Isn't that what the Democrats/liberals hold up as their banner? It's a humanitarian crisis. Thing is, who is creating this crisis? Why are we responsible for solving it? Why did George Washington order federal officers to prosecute any citizen for interfering in the war between England and France? He didn't want the United States drawn into that conflict is the answer. He didn't take sides in that conflict, his conscience directed him to protect the nation. I don't think we should be taking sides against each other. Is that acting in the interest of the common conscience? No, I don't believe it is. Our enemy is coming from within, just as Lincoln predicted it would. " America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. " ( Abraham Lincoln ) I'd suggest acting contrary to our common conscience is the beginning of decay. Those legislators that refuse to protect our boarders are responsible, acting upon their individual conscience, or lack of it, instead of the common conscience.