Erick Erickson makes an important statement in his latest pronouncement from the mount.

Here is the paragraph.  I highlighted the two key points.

Regardless of my personal preferences, I think the constitution has to override everything else. And without constitutional authority, whether I like it or not, I cannot support it. I see many of my Christian friends upset with the President. And, to be sure, the President probably does not have constitutional motives for undoing DACA. Nonetheless, it is the right thing to do regardless of the President’s motives.

His logic is reasonable, though wrong, on both points.

#1 – The Constitution has to override everything else.  Let me use the 1857 Dred Scott Case has as a discussion point.  The Supreme Court held that “a negro” could not be an American citizen and the federal government had no power to regulate slavery.  Even though most legal scholars would suggest it was the wrong decision (Bernard Schwartz says it “stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions. C.E. Hughes called it the Court’s greatest self-inflicted wound”. Junius P. Rodriguez says it is “universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court’s worst decision”. Historian David Thomas Konig says it was “unquestionably, our court’s worst decision ever.”)

The Dred Scott decision followed the Constitution.  Thus it is reasonable to see how the Court made their decision.  And to prove Erick Erickson is right, in 1866 the Congress passed the 14th Amendment.

So, using DACA and Erick Erickson’s reasoning, the Congress not the President is the only one with the power to protect the “Dreamers.”  I disagree, but the logic is reasonable and I understand it.

Let me use another example for discussion.  Trump’s statement’s about starting a war with North Korea and ISIS.  The Constitution gives Congress the sole right to declare war.  Since, according to Erickson, “the Constitution has to override everything else” then Trump is acting anti-constituitionaly.

Or, one more example,  Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, yet Trump is using his executive power to undermine it.

Oh, and another example. Trump saying he does not have to follow rules (The Constitution.)

#2 – “the President probably does not have constitutional motives for undoing DACA.” This is very important.  I agree with Erick Erickson.  Trump’s motives are not based on the Constitution.

#3 – As always, Erickson brings in Religion.  Erickson writes, “I see many of my Christian friends upset with the President.”  This is a post about the Constitutionality of DACA.  Yet, Erickson brings in Religion.  What difference does it make to the argument what his “Christian friends.” do or do not think?  It makes no difference.  Religion should play no role at all in his discussion.

However, this reference to his “Christian Friends” is consistent with his world view that Christianity is critical to any discussion.