Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This special ad-free edition, posted a day ahead of the usual schedule because of the urgency of events at the southern border, finds the 3WHH hosts engaging in their own civil war over the question of whether states have any remedy when the federal government abdicates is responsibility to protect the border. Steve and Lucretia were in rare accord—well maybe not quite complete accord*—against John’s positivist position of federal supremacy uber alles.
Our normally genteel whisky-sipping salon became more of a bourbon-swilling barroom brawl, and indeed we were tempted to call this episode “Showdown at the Positive Law Corral.” Steve thinks the crisis over Texas’s assertion of its right to defend the border, and the demand of the Biden Administration that Texas back down by tomorrow, represents the kind of “right of revolution” moment contemplated in the Declaration of Independence, especially since the governors of 25 other states have signaled their agreement with Texas.
But the rare concord between Steve and Lucretia breaks down when the subject turns to the Haley-Trump cage match in New Hampshire primary.
(*To paraphrase an old Bill Buckley line, if you think it is hard to argue with Lucretia, just try agreeing with her. It’s nearly impossible.)
Subscribe to Power Line in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
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.
The administration keeps saying ‘Let the Border Control do its job’ what they’re leaving out is under this administration its job is to let everyone in, processed or not. As if processing means anything at all except show up in 10 years if you want or not whatever.
The plain meaning of words and obvious intent are now being ignored by John?
Is there not both an implicit and explicit contract between the states and the Feds that the states WILL BE defended and that if the contract is broken, either by omission or commission, that the States SHALL have the right to defend itself?
This 2.5 mile long barrier of concertina wire is to protect PRIVATE property in the State of Texas that the Federal government IS NOT PROTECTING………
Res ipse loquitur…
Also…while The Donald MAY have heard of Machiavelli, his Nancy-Nikki game was, IMHO, a gaffe and not intentional….BUT Nicolo would have loved it.
Did you really ask why this is not “front page news”?
John, the Ds lost the House in 2022. John manages to be wrong on both the details and the spirit of the Constitution.
Joe Biden won an election. So did Greg Abbott.
The Bandit War occurred between 1915 and 1919 and was a series of raids from Mexico into South Texas. It was a spin off of the Mexican civil war happening at that time, and the impetus was, on some level, to reclaim US territory for Mexico. Mexican raids were fought off primarily by Texas Rangers, their numbers sometimes bolstered by US infantry troops or armed locals. Ethnic tensions ran hot as some Hispanic locals found common cause with the the Mexican bandits. Just imagine if Woodrow Wilson had demanded that Pa Ferguson stand down.
John implied that 2022 congressional election ratified Biden’s policies. It didn’t since the Ds lost the House.
Rhetorically, yes.
John repeatedly quoted the statute that requires the federal border protection agents to have “unfettered access to the border.” As I understand it, the concertina wire is placed at the border, on the border. With the concertina wire in place, the border protection agents can see the border, they can stand within arm’s length of the border, and they likely can reach and touch the border. It strikes me as unreasonable to claim that the concertina wire prohibits access to the border.
I do not think this will boil up into open rebellion prior to the election. Sufficiently cool heads will prevail in an optimism that Trump will be elected and therefore this historically extreme action can be avoided. If Biden is re-elected, and he has not otherwise de-escalated this situation, then similarly to the election of 1860, many Americans will no longer believe that this controversy can have a (non-violent) political resolution.
Also, While John insists that the constitution and the law provides protection for Federal Government to access the border, that is granted in the context of enforcing the law. It does not apply when they are ignoring or even defying the law.
Ours is a time in which words are lack definition.
January 6 is defined to be an “insurrection” by the Democrats, media, and “justice” department, even though the supposed “insurrectionists” were unarmed, and the government charges them as “interfering with a government proceeding” all be it with extreme levels of punishment.
People that think outside the Democrat media narrative see it as a MUCH more “peaceful demonstration” than the numerous BLM riots across the country that destroyed billions in property and resulted in 10-20 deaths.
For the population in general, January 6 is seen as an “insurrection” … the narrative wins. Meaning is whatever the Oligarchy says it is, see Orwell.
Unknown thousands of people crossing our Southern border with unknown armaments or objectives is defined by people like John, the administration, and the media as a “border control issue”, therefore clearly ONLY a federal issue. (pay no attention to that Sanctuary City, or even state in the case of California behind the curtain)
Texas governor Abbot, along with the Republican governors of 25 states define the border crisis as an invasion of unknown scope or intent. The assertion made by the “nothing here” contingent is that “there is no organization behind this, certainly not a state actor”. Relative to Fentanyl, I’d assert China is a state actor. Relative to human trafficking and other drug / unknown smuggling, I’d assert the Mexican drug cartels equal or exceed the Mexican government in power. Might Iran or other clear “state actors” be moving men and material across our “border”? We have no idea.
Listening to the podcast on my walk today, I kept thinking that in a territory where even educated people can’t agree on terms like “insurrection”, “invasion”, “demonstration” or even “woman”, thrown about as if they mean something, probably doesn’t meet a sensible definition of a “nation”.