Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Constitutional Crisis in Texas Despite SCOTUS Here's the short version. Governor Abbot authorized razor wire to be put along the border to stop illegal aliens from crossing over from Mexico into Texas. The Biden DOJ sued in court to stop this and took it all the way up to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS just ruled, 5 to 4, that the Federal Government has the right to send agents to where the barbed wire is and cut it in order to allow people through. You read that right. And Governor Abbot? He authorized even more razor wire to be put up. What's more, he just now declared that Texas is suffering an invasion and stated that the Federal Government broke its compact with the State of Texas. This is how a civil war for real starts. Lots of articles and analyses are happening this very moment. Rather than post some of them here, I prefer them to appear in the posts to this thread. Why? Because this situation is as volatile as all hell. It's probably going to be fast-changing for a while. For my own opinion, I'm glad to finally know that Governor Abbot has a pair. I thought he was deficient in that department. But I like what I am seeing right now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 I am so pissed at Amy Coney Barrett, here is the first article to go on this thread. Amy Coney Barrett Says Ruling For Open Border Has Nothing To Do With Landscaping Work She Needs Done This Summer Amy Coney Barrett Says Ruling For Open Border Has Nothing To Do With Landscaping Work She Needs Done This Summer BABYLONBEE.COM WASHINGTON, DC — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett fielded questions from reporters regarding her controversial vote to remove razor wire from the Texas border and claims it has absolutely nothing to do with her plans to re-landscape her yard this summer. This is humor, but I have no doubt personal reasons influenced her vote. I bet she does not want to be targeted by lefties protesting and threatening her outside her house. Incidentally, all 4 SCOTUS women voted to allow Federal agents to cut the Texas razor wire. (The quip going around is that all 5 SCOTUS women voted to keep the border open. Justice Roberts is one of them. ) I don't think they understand how invasions work. Nor how to fight them. And I bet they are going to be flabbergasted about how this will play out. It's far more serious than it looks right now, and it looks ugly right now. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 More on Barrett from Mike Davis (who is slated to become one of Trump's top cabinet members). Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 So far, 14 states are standing with Texas. Incidentally, it feels good to embed an Alex Jones video from X (former Twitter). I can just hear some people asking with incredulity, "You get your information from Alex Jones?" To which I respond, also with incredulity: "You get your information from the New York Times, Wapo, CNN, CBS, etc.?" In objective terms, Alex provides his sources in his reports. All those other rely on "a person familiar with the situation." In other words, Alex reports facts. All the others report gossip. That's why they lost their audience and Alex gains more each day. And despite anything else, 14 states are standing with Texas so far. We can expect that number to grow. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 Lots of people are commenting that SCOTUS did not order Texas to do anything with the razor wire ruling. They permitted the Biden junta to do something. I disagree. They are demanding Texas to allow the federal government (controlled by the Biden junta for now) to destroy Texas State property as the law of the land. Flawed thinking like this from the freedom side will never get us there. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Lots of people are commenting that SCOTUS did not order Texas to do anything with the razor wire ruling. They permitted the Biden junta to do something. I disagree. They are demanding Texas to allow the federal government (controlled by the Biden junta for now) to destroy Texas State property as the law of the land. Flawed thinking like this from the freedom side will never get us there. Michael Do you know of any nice deep-dive summary online of the actual legal issues decided and why they were decided as they were? If it is the legal issue of State vs. Federal Powers we have to remember one day a Democrat/Leftist State and a fully Republican Federal Executive Government and WH may come to some BIG disagreement about the border. The same legal issues of Powers may come up again.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 I'm counting 16 now. And it's growing. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 30 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said: Do you know of any nice deep-dive summary online of the actual legal issues decided and why they were decided as they were? S, I have been looking, but everything is partisan right now, or there are full court documents if you have the patience to read them. When I find something objective, something that I trust to be accurate, I will put it up. As to your concern, that is a balance of powers issue. Maybe legal precedence. But there's this. If the country gets more overrun with illegals than it already is, at a certain point, the US runs a risk of "balance of powers" and "legal precedence" no longer being governing principles. This is exactly my criticism of people like Amy Peikoff. There are the principles (words). And there are millions and millions of illegal aliens (reality). Them thar illegals doan need no stinkin' principles... Freedom without enforcement of freedom stops becoming freedom after a while. Then come the gangs. Ayn Rand even portrayed that near the end of Atlas Shrugged. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 I am now counting 17, with Texas that makes 18. And it's growing. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: As to your concern, that is a balance of powers issue. Maybe legal precedence. S, The following video will give you an overview of the politics of the Texas border situation. It doesn't address the legal precedence aspect, but it does show how laws are implemented in the US. To state it in reality terms, there has to be political will for a law on paper to become a law in reality. No one enforces laws where there is no political will. Todd Bensman: Biden Admin Does Not Have "Will" To Cut Border Razor Wire, Border Issue Leads Polls RUMBLE.COM Todd Bensman: Biden Admin Does Not Have "Will" To Cut Border Razor Wire, Border Issue Leads Polls Aired On: 1/25/2024 This gist is this. Biden wants the illegals coming in, but he knows the optics of it are damaging to his polling numbers. He doesn't need any more drone shots and mainstream news accounts of massive numbers of illegal aliens coming across the border in one whack. So he wants the illegals snuck in as much as possible. One good way to sneak them in is through gaps in the razor wire that the state of Texas laid. But they need to make those gaps first since Texas did a good job. The problem is if Biden sends down bulldozers and people with cutters right now, it will be super-damaging to his image and poll numbers. Because of the shitstorm Governor Abbot caused, there will be tons of people with cameras and smartphones on site recording every step of the way. Add to that, there are all those Democrat-run cities bitching about the illegal aliens overrunning their cities. So with a lot of exposure, Biden risks losing Democratic support. Todd Bensman says, even though there is a temporary stay granted by SCOTUS on barring the razor wire being cut by federal employees, he doesn't think Biden and his mob have the political will to send anyone. Governor Abbot stated two things clearly. 1. He has formally declared an invasion on the border and set his state government to deter it as the Constitution permits him to do. 2. He said if the feds do come and cut or remove the razor wire, the very next day he will put new razor wire up. As Bannon keeps saying in reference to Andrew Jackson, SCOTUS reached a decision. Now let them try to enforce it. As to legal precedence, since Abbot's move to protect the border is based on the Constitution in a specific Constitutional provision, I don't see this creating a precedent so that Democrats to make the same move once they get power again. They are not the sharpest tools in the shed when it comes to using the Constitution directly. Besides, they despise the restrictions the Constitution imposes on their power-mongering. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 25. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 There are lots of people saying this issue will not lead to a civil war. In my view, we are closer to a civil war than anyone of those people think. In the Constitution, Article 1, Section 10: Powers Denied to the States, the last paragraph states the issue clearly (my bold): No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Implied by the word "unless" means under the condition stipulated (invasion or imminent danger of it), all of the former is permitted to the invaded state. This means an invaded state can lay duty of tonnage, keep troops and ships of war, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or foreign power, and engage in war. Lots of other states are joining Texas and it is getting ugly. Now, on the other hand, Obama himself has asked Biden to not run in 2024. But Biden's vanity is so big that he sees no way to lose the 2024 election. But he's a cunning politician and he knows if he can goad a civil war, then stomp it, he can claim to be a hero and crush Trump and MAGA, yada yada yada. I think the damn fool is delusional enough to try this. And if he sends federal troops to Texas, I believe there will ultimately be a shooting confrontation. Then, what the country looks like after that, I do not know. But I suspect half or more of the Biden troops will walk off the battlefield in disgust. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 And there's this: President Trump Calls on 'All Willing States' to Deploy Their National Guards to Texas to Defend U.S-Mexico Border as Red State Alliance Grows to 25 | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM As the Gateway Pundit reported earlier, several Republican governors are uniting in support of Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s challenge against the Biden regime to defend the southern border. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 17 hours ago, Strictlylogical said: Do you know of any nice deep-dive summary online of the actual legal issues decided and why they were decided as they were? S, You might try the establishment argument. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: S, You might try the establishment argument. Michael I think we have a situation where perhaps it is no so clear cut… the law is relatively clear but the facts to which the laws are applicable are not necessarily clear. sometimes we can focus too much on purported facts… of which often we are not in full possession … and in today’s age are subject to much bias and twisting due to ideological and political forces… as well as pure corruption and lust for power. Due process and the rule of law help to ensure actual facts, through evidentiary proceedings and careful weighing of facts lower court proceedings can provide… provide the basis for action in accordance with the proper application pf the law in the context … which is justice (assuming good law). Declarations of emergency can come in multiple stripes… from various persons and on varying levels of factual basis… and clashes of powers can come in many forms and in various directions also stemming from different apprehension of the factual circumstances. Here two governments are doing things and doing them for reasons (perhaps both factual and ideological) which conflict… whether in the form of asking for injunctions or declarations of emergency, there is risk here that one side is wrong and taking steps quickly without knowing which side it is before the facts are fully known is likely more risky than getting to the facts as quickly as reasonably possible to resolve the issue. I am loath to criticize a decision which effectively says a proper court proceeding with evidence etc is required, because of the dangers of acting too swiftly… out of fear? Again think of other possibilities … with the shoe on the other foot… declarations of emergency powers due to the next pandemic, cyber attack… threat of war… threat to democracy?… “climate crises” There should be a sort of “emergency expedited court of first instance” process which would serve both the need for speed and the need for getting things right, but in a conflict of governments like this we need to get it right… even if it takes a little longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 22 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said: I think we have a situation where perhaps it is no so clear cut… the law is relatively clear but the facts to which the laws are applicable are not necessarily clear. sometimes we can focus too much on purported facts… of which often we are not in full possession … and in today’s age are subject to much bias and twisting due to ideological and political forces… as well as pure corruption and lust for power. Due process and the rule of law help to ensure actual facts, through evidentiary proceedings and careful weighing of facts lower court proceedings can provide… provide the basis for action in accordance with the proper application pf the law in the context … which is justice (assuming good law). Declarations of emergency can come in multiple stripes… from various persons and on varying levels of factual basis… and clashes of powers can come in many forms and in various directions also stemming from different apprehension of the factual circumstances. Here two governments are doing things and doing them for reasons (perhaps both factual and ideological) which conflict… whether in the form of asking for injunctions or declarations of emergency, there is risk here that one side is wrong and taking steps quickly without knowing which side it is before the facts are fully known is likely more risky than getting to the facts as quickly as reasonably possible to resolve the issue. I am loath to criticize a decision which effectively says a proper court proceeding with evidence etc is required, because of the dangers of acting too swiftly… out of fear? Again think of other possibilities … with the shoe on the other foot… declarations of emergency powers due to the next pandemic, cyber attack… threat of war… threat to democracy?… “climate crises” There should be a sort of “emergency expedited court of first instance” process which would serve both the need for speed and the need for getting things right, but in a conflict of governments like this we need to get it right… even if it takes a little longer. I hear what you are saying and I agree. That being said, we all know that 2020 was stolen and that these same people have zero chance to win 2024 unless they pull some stunt, and this will be the first of many attempts. What it shows me is that with 25 States onboard we are headed towards some sort of a civil war, then martial law, then no election or some rigged election. These folks have two chances to win, slim and none, and slim just left town. They will continue to try and hope that We The People will backdown and we will not. Securing our border is the hill that we are willing to die for, but we will not as we will prevail and every other idiotic move they make on the way to November. I say that we need our Canadian truckers at the Texas border with jumping castles, and the whole nine, supporting our beautiful President, President Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 56 minutes ago, Marc said: we are headed towards some sort of a civil war, then martial law, then no election or some rigged election. This kind of escalation is what the left wants… its the excuse they would love to use to prevent the election of Trump from even happening in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 4 hours ago, Strictlylogical said: There should be a sort of “emergency expedited court of first instance” process... S, Another top-down ruler? How many rulers do you want? Balance of powers is not supposed to be smooth as it's primary reason for existence. Sometimes it's messy. The purpose is to oppose tyranny and the abuse of power. Adding another potential tyrant does not fix a clash. Have you noticed that you are more comfortable talking about due process and which laws should apply and so on than you are of reality? Where do millions and millions of illegal aliens flooding the southern border fit into your logic? Is that too much focus on "purported facts"? Notice that many of these illegal millions of aliens are young men of military age from countries hostile to the existence of the US. Russia. China. Iran... I'm not trying to be personal, but I did put reality on the table. And it got shoved aside and ignored. You will not find the following observation written into law, but here is a reality check. When a governing body is destroyed by conquest, none of its laws can be enforced. So does it matter which law of the defunct government is right or wrong? How many times in history have we heard the following phrase right before a governing body got obliterated? "It can't happen here." Those are the people who ignored reality when it got dangerous. Rights without enforcement are just words. The first bully who comes along proves that. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 Here is Tucker interviewing Governor Abbot by telephone. A few highlights: 1. Texas already has armed law enforcement agents on the border, so if Biden nationalizes the national guard in Texas, there are already people in place to make sure more razor wire will be laid. 2. Of the 25 states that are standing with Texas, 10 have already sent their national guards to Texas. Governor Abbot believes the other 15 states will do likewise. 3. On March 5, a new law will take effect in Texas. All state law enforcement agents on the border will be authorized to arrest any illegal alien crossing into Texas. 4. Governor Abbots expects this crisis to end on January 20, 2025, when Trump is sworn in as president. At that time, he will partner with the federal government to keep out illegal aliens. Michael EDIT: More here in this article. Governor Greg Abbott to Tucker: We are 'Prepared' for Conflict with Biden Regime Over Border - 10 States have Sent their National Guards to Defend Texas Against Invasion (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM Texas Governor Greg Abbott told Tucker Carlson Friday afternoon that he is fully prepared for conflict with federal authorities and that states have already sent their National Guards and other law enforcement to defend the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 Ken Paxton, the AG of Texas, says that there is no document saying the following (yet), but there is an ugly fact. The Biden administration is working with the Mexican cartels to traffic humans into the US. And the cartels are making a lot of money from this operation. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Notice that many of these illegal millions of aliens are young men of military age from countries hostile to the existence of the US. Russia. China. Iran... Here's an article about former FBI officials writing to Congress about this. Former FBI Chiefs Sound Alarm in Urgent Memo to Congress: Warning of Imminent Threat from Military-Aged Men Poised for Invasion from Hostile Nations | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM A group of former high-ranking FBI officials has issued an alarming memo to key government leaders, signaling a dire threat to national security. When the bombs start going off in shopping malls and churches and whatnot, and maybe the electrical grid goes down in a few select places, when bioweapons are released in select American cities, etc., maybe then people will wish the Federal Government did not allow terrorists to freely enter the country. To imagine that millions of illegal aliens cross the border with no restraint in a short amount of time and imagine that there are no terrorists among them is either delusional or deceptive. Regardless, this is the Federal Government acting in a treasonous manner. This is the Federal Government allowing foreign enemies to enter, set up shop and get nice and organized to attack civilians and others on American soil. There are immigration laws on the books. The Federal Government is refusing to enforce them while granting privileges to those who violate the immigration laws. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strictlylogical Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: S, Another top-down ruler? How many rulers do you want? Balance of powers is not supposed to be smooth as it's primary reason for existence. Sometimes it's messy. The purpose is to oppose tyranny and the abuse of power. Adding another potential tyrant does not fix a clash. Have you noticed that you are more comfortable talking about due process and which laws should apply and so on than you are of reality? Where do millions and millions of illegal aliens flooding the southern border fit into your logic? Is that too much focus on "purported facts"? Notice that many of these illegal millions of aliens are young men of military age from countries hostile to the existence of the US. Russia. China. Iran... I'm not trying to be personal, but I did put reality on the table. And it got shoved aside and ignored. You will not find the following observation written into law, but here is a reality check. When a governing body is destroyed by conquest, none of its laws can be enforced. So does it matter which law of the defunct government is right or wrong? How many times in history have we heard the following phrase right before a governing body got obliterated? "It can't happen here." Those are the people who ignored reality when it got dangerous. Rights without enforcement are just words. The first bully who comes along proves that. Michael You have to stop assuming the worst in people. Trust that of the many interpretations of possible meanings and origins, from proper, well reasoned, and rights respecting to rash, superficial, and tyrannical... that you are not dealing with the latter. I will respond, in earnest... even if perhaps your response does not constitute fair trade for the good will on my part. 1. Not an additional tyrant... an expedited process, by the same usually sluggish court system. 2. Messy is not my point... courts cases are decided on the basis of evidence/facts and the law, and according to an evidentiary standard by the fact finder... beyond reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities etc. An emergency injunction going higher into the court system asks for circumvention on less and less contact with reality by higher and higher courts. 3. Process is precisely how reality is introduced and respected in a conflict between parties... whether litigants in a divorce case, accused and prosecutor, or two government bodies. Process is not antithetical to reality... it is how ensure the application of law respects it. 4. Illegal aliens do not fit into logic they simply are. I have not denied them. Purported facts on which the cases are decided are more about who has power to do what and when... where is the wire... why do they want to cut it... where do they want to go and to do what..l do not have a sufficient view to definitively decide what should be done.. and neither would an appeal court without enough evidence on the record. NOW A: The governor SAYS or declares X, Texas SAYS X... BIDEN SAYS Y.... his executive/departments SAY Y... what principles do we apply if we do not have all the facts?... i.e. the sides have not duked in out in a court case in which they have adduced evidence, testimony, etc. LATER? B: Newsom SAYS or declares G, California SAYS G,... Trump says B... his executive SAY B.... Trump may ask for an injunction to stop Newsom doing something... how much do we want to open ourselves to improper re-application of the standards, way things were decided above?? The principle of look into into reality IS ... getting and weighing evidence... which is what a lower court does. Getting to Reality IS the principle which governs such emergency standards... and I cannot be wholly critical of SCOTUS. There is a process for getting that reality into the system... if anything we need to streamline it... but not at the expense of accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, Strictlylogical said: You have to stop assuming the worst in people. aaaaaand... 1 hour ago, Strictlylogical said: ... even if perhaps your response does not constitute fair trade for the good will on my part. So who is assuming the worst, hmmmm? I'm blunt, especially when it comes to evading reality. But that does not mean I am assuming the worst in someone as, say, meaning they have bad intentions. I think you are a good person with the best of intentions. It would be an honor to have you as a neighbor. I like you. I still think you are avoiding reality while worrying about the rules. Once the crisis is dealt with, we can go back to discussing the guy who cheated at chess while the Titanic was pounding against the iceberg. But first we have to deal with the disaster and save as many people as possible. Here are a few points where you and I differ on reality and the courts. 1 hour ago, Strictlylogical said: Messy is not my point... courts cases are decided on the basis of evidence/facts and the law, and according to an evidentiary standard by the fact finder... beyond reasonable doubt, balance of probabilities etc. Of course that is not your point. That's my point. What you describe is the way it should be. Not the way it is. And even then, making judgments based on precedence from other jurisdictions has poisoned the judicial system with reams of jurisprudence, often contradictory. If you want a law these days, just pick which one you want no matter what you want it for. You will find a law that favors your whim. And if you want jurisprudence about it, you have a banquet, nay, a humongous farm of contradictions to choose from. If there is one thing I am looking forward to with artificial intelligence, it is what AI will do to that mess. But to say "court cases are decided on the basis of" essentially reason, have you looked at the sheer number of political prisoners in the US right now? Are you aware of the differential enforcement of laws and sentences? Mild druggies serving life sentences? People protest this every day. Take a look at the prisons and see how many people are there that should not be, whereas people who burn down buildings, attack innocents as thugs, and so on walk the streets and are often let off with a slap on the wrist. (And don't get me started on the war-mongers...) This observation can be applied to all classes, races, whatever collective one wants to use as a standard. Nope, the court decisions in theory should be based on evidence, due process and the like. In practice, the system is not only flawed, it is hopelessly corrupt, entangled and bloated beyond it's capacity to function well. The only reason it works in its flawed manner is that there is a plethora of opposing diversity of thought among judges, juries and law enforcement agents. If you ever have to go to trial and do not take this into account, that is if you do not seek out those who think rationally and try to get out of venues where the system is corrupted beyond repair, I say you run a much higher risk (much, much higher risk) of incarceration, being bankrupted, etc., than if you did otherwise. (And if you are guilty and want to get off, do the opposite. ) Then there is this. 1 hour ago, Strictlylogical said: An emergency injunction going higher into the court system asks for circumvention on less and less contact with reality by higher and higher courts. What court in the US is higher than SCOTUS? And should SCOTUS be exempt from reality as your words suggest--or so exempt from reality as to make that meaningless? SCOTUS just shit all over itself. So where do you get an emergency injunction decreed against the smell? A "higher and higher" court? Where? There is no where else to go. Only SCOTUS can undo a SCOTUS ruling (as in Roe versus Wade). And, of course, Congress can make a new law that the President signs that makes certain SCOTUS decisions moot. That's it. And another: 1 hour ago, Strictlylogical said: Process is not antithetical to reality... it is how ensure the application of law respects it. Process is not antithetical to reality until it is. I like to use observation, not just theory and words. For a super-easy example among countless examples, I remember when the due and proper legal process said that a black man was three fifths of a man. That's not any reality I can observe. Granted, this got fixed over time. But tell that to all those people who died, who were injured, and who were incarcerated in the meanwhile. It took a civil war to stop that shit. Not a process adjustment. Notice that the Declaration of Independence did not start with what the correct process should be. It started with identifying reality. Quote When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. And it goes on to list instance after instance of reality, not process. The good news is that we are not there, yet. We could get there, but I believe such a separation will not take effect anytime soon. And this has nothing to do with process. This has to do with reality. Don't think Biden and his crew would not crush his opponents with force if he could get away with it. Just look at the J6 political prisoners and all those large SWAT teams kicking in their doors at night to arrest them. Then they keep these people--mostly selfie-takers with strong opinions--in prison without a trial for years on end. How's that for process? But reality will trump process in the end. It always does. Here's a reality Biden has to contend with. The federal government does not have the money to pay to fight 25 states on the border if it comes to that. It doesn't have the means. Biden might have the process, but he doesn't have the means. If he tries (and I believe he will), he will learn about this reality real quick. His backing down is going to be a hoot to watch. Printing money will take him only so far. On another point, there is much I agree with you about. The importance of accuracy and so on. I just don't think putting the law above reality and calling that process gets us there. Also, I wish the law worked as well as you present. It doesn't. When thinking about how the law applies to reality, you have to use your brain. There is no way to turn it off and let process take over. You have to constantly identify reality (as correctly as you can) and evaluate it (as correctly as you can) and see how that fits to the processes you want to use as rules and social glue. Then adjust or not as your morality dictates. A law that is not enforced is neither process nor reality. The US legal processes are full of those. They are certainly no guarantee that the system will survive attacks. I'm reminded of John Adams's remark (I paraphrase) that the US system of government only works with moral people. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 9 hours ago, Strictlylogical said: This kind of escalation is what the left wants… its the excuse they would love to use to prevent the election of Trump from even happening in the first place Exactly, that is why we must fight this right here right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 Biden issued a demand to be answered today (which the press bastardized as a demand to let federal agents start cutting wire today. Here is Ken Paxton's response. It looks like he is going to bury the DOJ in legalize bullshit for a time. This makes Biden look like he is doing something and it allows for more razor wire to be laid. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now