Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
John Yoo is back at last from yet another Italian junket—yes, Lucretia let him back across the border unharmed!—and hosts this week's episode in which we clarify some of the over-hasty arguments from last week's highly thymotic episode about exactly when and how it is legitimate to contest the Supreme Court over the application of the Constitution.
This opening elided nicely into the sequels from this week's news, in this case Kari Lake's election litigation in Arizona, and the Biden Administration's litigation against Arizona for the sin of actually trying to plug the gaps in the border fence that the Biden Administration won't. Why is Arizona suddenly at the center of things?
And why is the left so freaked out about Moore v. Harper, the case currently before the Supreme Court regarding the primacy of state legislatures in settling election law? Maybe because following the Constitution's text on these matters will constrain the vote-harvesting games Democrats have been playing? John and Steve have some flashbacks to the Florida 2000 recount, and Steve also corrects the record about the persistent myths over the stolen election of 1960.
We ran out of time before we could do our Christmas wish list, gift ideas, books of the year, and whisky reviews, but since it is the holiday season we're going to have several bonus episodes next week of varying formats, including one all new format and subject area. Stay tuned and check in often!
Steve Hayward
"Lucretia"
Discussion (7)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Continuing the last episode a little was good.
It now seems clear that our only hope is that Lucretia starts standing on chairs rallying local active boarder patrol people to form a militia, operate under her divine wisdom and solve the problem (and maybe a few others while she is at it). If things don't work out, John will represent her in court and Steve will be her more tame media spokesman.
Now if she doesn't want to stand on chares, these three really need to publish some kind of American philosophy book. Really laying out, from the beginning, relevant and important philosophical points.
I find it hard to say, hay listen to this pod cast, start reading Strauss, Lincoln, Jaffa and Aristotle. It's too much for 99% yet 100% of us have political opinions and vote.
Your perspectives are important and there needs to be something that can act as a force multiplier.
We need content from you for the plebs. Some easy fun to read, watch or listen to cliffsnotes.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
That great constitutional scholar, Matt Milley, complained about the 3/5th clause. I’ve heard that in the Constitutional Convention northern delegates didn’t want to count slaves for representation in the House whereas the southern representatives wanted to count them the same as free people. The 3/5th clause was a compromise. Can you comment about this. Is my history accurate. Thanks!
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The South wanted them counted because they would get more representation in the House. The North didn't want their representation diluted by the south. I'm sure their is a more educated opinion than mine; but at the surface it seemed to be less about human rights and more about political ambition/distribution of power in the House.
To tie this into current events, illegal immigration has bearing on the House with the census.
Half joking, but at least the south got to use slaves productively, illegal immigrants can't be used at all and are a huge debt to society. Why should they be counted? Not saying take away human rights, but if they have no economic rights and firms cannot hire or write their wages off for tax purposes, why should they get even 1/100th of a compromise?
PODCAST HOST
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Richard,
Here is one of the absolute best articles, by Diana Schaub, on the subject. I assign it to my students, despite several complaints by the occasional snowflake that they are "triggered."
lawliberty.org
Open link
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Good summary article. Which leads me to wonder what the whisky pod trio would think about removing illegal populations from being counted for representation. It seems apparent that the 3/5th policy promoted slavery; and counting illegal immigrants also promotes more illegal immigration policy stemming form the "left".
Would changing the law around counting, for purposes of representation, be enough of a disincentive to solve the issue at hand?
At the moment, I see that as the root issue. That if the law changes, almost over night, we would see a different approach at the border.
You're seeing five of seven comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.