Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
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.)
Hosted by Steve Hayward
Discussion (16)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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)
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
You're seeing five of 16 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.