The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Civil War at the Border Special Edition

This would be an interesting turn in the debate if the question, "was it constitutional for a state to succeed from the union?" was answered, "yes." - if we are relying on Texas v White for our reasoning, isn't that just a judge's opinion? It's not in the Constitution, and I'm sure someone will draw my attention to some legislative action - but is *that* then unconstitutional?

Anyway I'm not familiar with the Clairmont reasons for why it's not, but if it was - doesn't that shift this entire debate?

Little Crosby & Nash for our exit today.

Next week, I would like to hear John's legal expertise on the matter of Fani Willis's boyfriend billing Fulton County for visits with the Biden White House. I am not a lawyer, so perhaps there is a simple legal explanation I am overlooking, but why would the WH be meeting with a local prosecutor (three days after Trump declared his candidacy, I believe)? Is this not evidence of the WH meddling in the case, aka collusion and election interference? If not, why not? Why isn't this page one news?

Fani Willis' Prosecutor Meeting White House Counsel Raises Questions (msn.com)

Re: illegal immigration, I think "invasion" is in fact the right word. Here's the argument: there are crimes where we use a different word for individuals committing it and a group committing it. One man breaks a store window and steals something, that's theft. A hundred men break store windows and steal stuff, that's rioting. One soldier leaves his post, that's desertion. A company leaves its post, that's mutiny. One man defrauds me, that's fraud. An outfit defrauds me, that's racketeering. One man sneaks into the country, that's a border jumper. A thousand men cross the border at one time, that's an invasion.

The argument John gives as to why that isn't an invasion (alluded to in this episode but argued more fully in earlier ones) is that the people aren't coming armed, and they don't come as part of a military unit backed by a foreign government. To that I ask "Why is it my problem if they're incompetent at crime?" Suppose one man tries to stab me with a knife and another man tries to stab me with a pencil. One of them is more likely to kill me, but I think the fact that they're both trying to stab me is still salient.

It's depressing listening to John. I'm surprised he didn't tell Texas to lie back and think of the Constitution. He says to let the voters solve it. Lucretia retorts that the country might not make it to the next election. A functioning government would impeach Biden for dereliction of duty. A true opposition party would be doing all it could to secure our border. Instead it's working to secure Ukraine's border. The system is broken and Texas can't continue to be invaded. Until the system works as intended, I applaud Governor Abbott for leading the way.

The SCOTUS rules that Biden can't unilaterally forgive student loans, but he ignores it and does it anyway. Cities across the country declare themselves "Sanctuary Cities" for Undocumented Democrats (illegal immigrants). The feds are all fine with it. (they get bent when the illegals actually show up)

Texas follows the constitutional rights of states and the SCOTUS rules that he can't enforce the states borders.

What sort of "nation" has no borders, politically weaponized lawfare, and citizens so compliant with generally false narratives that they have no grasp of reality? Given the tent city squatters in nearly every city of "20K" or more, 100k yearly deaths from Fentanyl alone, when are we officially declared a "failed state"?

Is it when our digital currency isn't worth the energy to keep track of it? Perhaps the real reason for the Green Energy fiasco is so that there can be rolling outages that erase the "cloud dollars" you thought you had.

Here is Abbot's statement on his action.

"James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border."