Friday, December 2, 2022
A Constitutional Comedy of Errors Will Lead to Constitutional Tragedy
The pressing question is not whether the border crisis meets the constitutional definition of “invasion” but whether the Constitution will survive widespread anarchy.
Professor John Yoo, constitutional law professor at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has published a remarkable article in National Review. He contends that Texas Governor Greg Abbot’s November 16 letter upbraiding Joe Biden for refusing to honor the Constitution’s guarantee that the federal government shall protect the states against the invasion of illegal border crossers is a misrepresentation of the Constitution because no actual “invasion” has taken place. In fact, says Yoo, the Texas governor’s plan to use the Texas National Guard to prevent illegal aliens from entering Texas is itself a violation of the Constitution, because immigration and border control fall within the plenary power of the federal government even if the Biden Administration refuses to exercise this exclusive power.
Under the Constitution, Congress is granted power to “establish an uniform Rule Naturalization.” By extension, this means that Congress has the power to determine, as an aspect of the nation’s sovereignty, the conditions for entry into the United States. More than a century ago—just when the progressive dream of the world homogeneous state was emerging—the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked that “it is an accepted maxim of international sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.” It is important to note that the Court here emphasized that border control is not only an intrinsic aspect of sovereignty, but “essential to self-preservation.”
Under progressivism, “self-preservation” is no longer considered a rational goal; it is subordinate to diversity and openness. We hear it every day: “diversity is our strength.” Open borders, the invitation to the nations of the world, is the key to increasing diversity without any consideration of “self-preservation.” Terrorists and criminals of all stripes have rushed to fill the diversity void.
Professor Yoo’s constitutional exegesis would make the Constitution a “suicide pact.” The strict interpretation of one word—an interpretation which is highly questionable—means that the Constitution may be sacrificed on the altar of false original intent jurisprudence.
Professor Yoo admits (how could he do otherwise?) that “President Biden undoubtedly bears heavy responsibility” for the failure to control the border. Indeed, he “has allowed the southern border to fall into chaos, with a million illegal aliens [it’s actually 3 million] crossing into the United States in the past year. This record-breaking surge has imposed heavy cost on communities in Texas, Arizona, and California, created a route for the trafficking of people and drugs, and led to thousands of deaths of migrants at the crossings.”
No mention here of the many deaths of American citizens, those who have been killed or murdered by illegal immigrants, or who have been raped, tortured, defrauded, victimized by identity theft, extorted, or terrorized by MS13 (many of these crimes have been committed by illegal aliens who had been previously deported, some multiple times). Nor does Yoo mention the massive drug trafficking that takes place across the border and how many Americans are killed by fentanyl as a result. Moreover, known terrorists have been caught trying to cross the border and other terrorists are known to have crossed without having been apprehended. It is impossible to argue that this “chaos at the border” does not constitute an imminent national security emergency.
A Deliberate Progressive Policy Permitting Invasion
We must understand that the open border is a deliberate policy of the Biden Administration, and the resultant crime is the owing to that policy. Millions of illegal aliens crossing the border may not be an invasion in Professor Yoo’s questionable understanding of original intent, but it is certainly an invasion in the only sense that matters—it is real, and it has real life consequences.
“An originalist interpretation of ‘invasion’,” our professor assures us “would exclude the border crisis.” The clause in the Constitution protects states against an invasion that is “imminent danger,” and the “border crisis, awful as it is, does not create an imminent danger.” Drug cartels, we are told, do not seek to aggrandize territory; they merely seek “profit, not political objectives.” But, of course, it is obvious to anyone with the least common sense that drug cartel networks as active throughout the entire United States as is the MS 13 terrorist network, are a danger in the sense the Constitution means it.
Yoo argues that the framers’ understanding was that an “invasion” occurred only when sovereign nations crossed borders using military force for the purpose of aggrandizing territory; pirates and Indians might be included as well, he adds. Leaving aside the question of Indians who may have represented sovereign nations, how can cartels be distinguished from pirates, who sought profits but not territory? Did they always act as the agents of sovereign governments or were most pirates “freebooters”? In any case, it is true that the cartels and MS 13 and the Mexican mafia, among others, do not hold territory by military force nor do these groups act directly as the agents of a sovereign government. But how is this not an invasion? Many inner cities are governed by heavily armed cartels just as effectively as they would be by military forces.
Undoubtedly the most absurd of Professor Yoo’s claims is that designating the “chaos” at the border with its influx of “millions” of illegal border crossers as an “invasion” would be an invitation for extremist groups to engage in violence against the invaders as self-styled militias defending the country against these invaders.
Professor Yoo makes another unwarranted leap of imagination: he claims that Texas might be so emboldened by its success in designating the illegal immigrant implosion as an “invasion” that it might invoke the “declare war” provision of the Constitution to “engage in war” against the “invaders.” This, of course, would be a clear violation of the Constitution as only Congress has the power to declare war. But one constitutional violation can easily...
The 90 Miles Mystery Video: Nyctophilia Edition #1220
Before You Click On The "Read More" Link,
Please Only Do So If You Are Over 21 Years Old.
If You are Easily Upset, Triggered Or Offended, This Is Not The Place For You.
Please Leave Silently Into The Night......
The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #1920
You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside?
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific,
from the beautiful to the repugnant,
from the mysterious to the familiar.
If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed,
you could be inspired, you could be appalled.
This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended.
You have been warned.
Thursday, December 1, 2022
Our Lying Idiot Media Really Is That Dumb As stupid as you think the media is, it’s even worse.
As a rule of thumb, the less innovative and functional an organization is, the more likely it is to disguise its innate worthlessness through virtue signaling. Executives go woke when they have no idea how to move a company forward. Employees who don’t want to do their jobs descend into identity politics and demand that the company reflect their values. Those values, apart from all the right racial and sexual politics, will eventually come down to not doing their jobs.
The top generals and admirals in the military have gone woke because they have no idea how to win wars anymore. And there are fewer consequences for declaring a ‘war on hate’ and failing than for losing a war against China or 7th century savages with rocket launchers.
And then there’s the media.
One of the most astounding stories of media malfeasance is how the Associated Press ran a story claiming that Russian missiles struck Poland after a 10 minute Slack chat with a reporter who told colleagues, “I’m actually at a doctor’s appointment.” Nobody at the AP, including its Arab correspondent running the European desk, did any kind of follow-up or got confirmation.
When a scandal like this reveals the internal workings of the media, it’s almost laughable how little fact checking goes into stories and how thoroughly ignorant everyone involved really is.
But the only thing astounding about the story is how commonplace it is. The media now routinely operates this way after discarding the layers of fact checking and runs reports based solely on whether they fit a political narrative and whether there is some anonymous government source behind them. The Russian missile strike story met both criteria.
“They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo,” Ben Rhodes, Obama’s close adviser, once sneered. “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
He told this to the New York Times.
Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the New York Times exposed how shoddy the paper’s process that led to it repeating the ‘bullseye’ smear against her was. Former editorial page editor James Bennet sourced the widely discredited claim that her election map had somehow led to the shooting of former Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally unstable man from an old column by a former restaurant critic. Despite the plethora of material showing that it wasn’t true, the paper’s research didn’t go to its news articles or those of any others, but a lefty foodie’s rant.
That is just how the media operates. It’s not a brilliant operation of intrepid reporters who happen to think that Communism was a disappointing failure that needs to be...
'Apple Is in No Sense American': Tucker Carlson Goes Scorched Earth on Tech Giant for Censorship
One might assume Apple, the most valuable company in the world, is an American company, but you wouldn’t be able to tell by its fealty to the authoritarian Chinese regime.
Carlson is warning that “Apple is covering for the government of China,” Fox News reported.
“Financial listings describe Apple as an American company. You can see why they do. Apple is headquartered in the United States. It was founded by Americans. To this day, it’s run by an American citizen, but those facts don’t tell the story. In fact, at this point, Apple is in no sense American. Apple’s loyalty is to the government of China,” Carlson recently said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”
But Apple is not acting like a company born in liberty-loving America.
“Earlier this month, Apple did the bidding of the Chinese government to crush domestic protests against the Communist Party there,” Carlson gravely reported. “Apple did this by disabling its permanent AirDrop feature in China and so far, only in China. It’s the only country in which it’s disabled. Why did Apple disable that feature in China? Well, because that feature, permanent AirDrop, allows iPhone users to communicate directly with one another without using the internet or cellular networks — both of which in a totalitarian state like China, are controlled by the government and that means that without permanent AirDrop, it’s effectively impossible for freedom-minded citizens to organize with one another. They’re powerless.”
Apple knew that iPhone users in China were using Apple AirDrop feature to get around the government’s despotic controls. So the company fell all over itself to do the Chinese government’s bidding.
“Apple is now an active collaborator with China’s murderous police state. When tanks roll into a Chinese city, Apple is rooting for the tanks,” Carlson said, adding, “this is not an overstatement.”
Apple has officially become “a partner with a Chinese police state,” Carlson warned.
“Apple’s decision to actively help America’s enemies, to hurt ordinary people seeking freedom, just wasn’t news in the view of The New York Times — not that you should be surprised by it. Apple has been sucking up to the Communist Party of...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)