Texas told the Biden administration to take a hike.
Via Brion McClanahan
But this isn’t “nullification”.
Texas insists that the Biden administration enforce the laws of the United States.
Biden has so far refused and instead retaliated by cutting off natural gas exports from Texas.
In other words, Biden has chosen economic warfare against a State, the very definition of treason in the Constitution, to appease the hard left faction in his political party.
This is the very thing the founding generation feared from the executive branch.
Some background is in order.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott directed the Texas National Guard to construct obstacles—barbed wire fencing and shipping containers--on land adjacent to the Rio Grande River. This is Texas property, not federal land.
The United States Border Patrol used it as a processing center for illegal aliens, and thus it became a focal point for massive numbers of “migrants” crossing into Texas across the Rio Grande River.
Invasion would be a better word.
Texas then told the Border Patrol that they were no longer allowed on State property while Texas law enforcement began arresting and deporting illegal aliens.
The Federal Government sued in federal court and demanded that the razor wire and makeshift border wall come down. Biden’s Justice Department also argued that Texas’ efforts to enforce federal immigration law violated the Constitution.
“Texas cannot run its own immigration system. It’s efforts, through SB 4, intrude on the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens, frustrate the United States’ immigration operations and proceedings, and interfere with U.S. foreign relations.”
Here’s the catch. Texas isn’t running its own immigration system. It’s enforcing existing federal law.
Every officer in the United States, from the local governments to the President, takes an oath to uphold constitutional federal law. Biden did so in 2021. That is the primary language of his oath of office.
Biden has not claimed that immigration laws are unconstitutional. He has not claimed that these people are crossing the border legally.
He admits that they are entering Texas illegally, meaning his only job is enforcing the laws on the books, something his administration is clearly refusing to do.
Texas has done it for him.
But this raises several larger Constitutional questions.
The Founders unequivocally considered “invasion” to be one of the important reasons States maintained control of their own militia units.
That would be the modern misnamed “National Guard.”
Biden cannot “nationalize” the Guard in this instance because federal law would not allow it.
The Texas National Guard is already enforcing federal law, meaning that if Biden nationalized the Guard and told them to stand down, he would be in violation of the Constitution.
He would also violate federal law. The Insurrection Act of 1792 allows the President to nationalize the militia (National Guard) in three instances: to suppress insurrection, stop domestic violence, or enforce federal law.
Allowing invasion is not on the list. Nor is breaking the law.
That would be a dereliction of duty, an impeachable offense.
The parallels between Biden’s actions and other stand-offs between the States and the general government are impossible to find.
Texas wants to enforce federal law.
In 1798, Virginia and Kentucky nullified the Alien and Sedition Acts because they violated the Constitution. This wasn’t a case of neglect.
In 1815, several New England States refused to enforce laws in support of the War of 1812. Again, not a case of neglect.
In 1832, South Carolina nullified the federal tariff. Jackson threatened to send in the army to collect the tariff. He wasn’t refusing to enforce a federal law.
In the 1840s and 1850s, several Northern States refused to enforce the fugitive slave laws. The Supreme Court ruled that States did not have to use their own police powers to support federal law.
But in this case, Texas is supporting federal law. The Biden Administration has vacated its Constitutional responsibility.
The Justice Department’s claim that the general government has “exclusive authority to regulate the entry and removal of noncitizens” would also be news to the founding generation.
States could determine residency and who could and could not be within their borders. Jefferson made this contention in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. After 1808, the general government could prohibit “persons” from entering the States, but this power was not denied to the States in Article I, Section 10, meaning the States could also allow or prohibit “persons” from entering their borders.
The “supremacy clause” only applies to laws made in “pursuance of the Constitution.”
Nor does the 14th Amendment cover illegal aliens. Only citizens of the States are entitled to due process and the privileges and immunities of citizens of the other States. Foreign nationals are not citizens of any State or the United States.
This is an open and shut case of dangerous abuse of power by the executive branch. If the Republicans in Congress had any spine, they would immediately impeach Biden for his action against Texas and inaction on immigration enforcement.
In the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison listed “negligence” and betraying “his trust to a foreign power” as the chief causes of impeachment, among others.
Attempting to coerce a State though economic boycotts would satisfy Gouverneur Morris’s definition of “treachery”, what he considered to be an impeachable offense.
In either case, Biden should be easily convicted and booted from power.
That is, if we had a real Constitutional government in the federal city.
That dream died in 1789 in the First Congress.
I discuss all of this on Episode 926 of The Brion McClanahan Show.
You can watch it here.
OR
You can listen to it and download it here.
If you want a real history education, check out McClanahan Academy. I've produced several courses on secession, the Constitution, the War, decentralization, and a host of other cool topics. I think it's the antidote to our current Lincolnian nightmare. Use the coupon code Podcast at checkout and get 25% off every class.
And if you want to get my show ad free, just head over to my Patreon account. For $10 you get no ads and one additional Podcast per month that is based on your questions. It's a win/win.
Copyright © 2024 Brion McClanahan, All rights reserved.
You are you receiving this email because you opted in at our website https://www.brionmcclanahan.com.
Our mailing address is:
Brion McClanahan
PO Box 3761
Auburn, AL 36831-3761
Add us to your address book
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
2 notes
·
View notes
so sorry if this is a stupid question but like... how do u age up characters, not like literally but like in a writing sence (cause ur suo fics were honestly amazing)
this isn't a stupid question at all, it's actually something I struggle a lot with LOL and I'm glad to hear that you liked how I handled it in my suo fics - thank you for reading 🥺!
here are the approaches I take to generally ageing people up:
think about their canon characterization - not just their traits and habits, but also their motivations/values and where their character arc is heading
think about what kind of path they'd be heading toward as an adulthood (in material, mundane terms - university, type of work, relationships, major life events, etc). sometimes the series will give you careers they're heading towards, but wherever that's not the case, I usually like to stick to very realistic career paths because it grounds them into a realistic kind of adult context that we would be able to relate to. if they're getting into some kind of exceptional career (like, for instance, yakuza membership lol, but even if I kept them in delinquent groups like shishitoren or roppo-ichiza), then I usually go out of my way to justify it.
now this is the tricky part - think about how the events of their adulthood would affect their motivations/values, traits, habits, and larger character arc. the motivations/values and character arc pieces are very important, because it basically defines the adult characterization. (that's why so much of the suo fic revolves around his master and the effect of losing him, and what it does to his values and character arc!)
I also like to think about how other, normal adults would perceive this new aged-up version of them - the typical salaryman, the typical convenience store worker, etc. I find it helps recontextualize the character away from the canon setting and toward a more realistic, adult context. this is mostly so I'm not viewing the character through rose coloured glasses as I'm writing them lol (eg, someone who may be charming to us because of our attachment to them in canon might in fact be a neurotic loser to the average well-adjusted adult).
sorry I yapped so much rip - hopefully this helps!!!!
23 notes
·
View notes