Nullification, Secession or Rebellion?

REFLECTION. In truth, constitutional order throughout the land can be fully restored IF IF IF the routinely cowed states would simply assert their 10th Amendment authority to NULLIFY unconstitutional fed laws, judicial opinions, bureaucratic regulations and Executive orders, this in accordance with the foundational principle of "dual state-federal sovereignty", Art VI Cl 2, and Madison's and Jefferson's Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

Routine and ruinous unconstitutional actions on the part of the feds have been painfully--and unpardonably--plentiful and virtually unopposed. They have become so commonplace as to have become tolerable and often unnoticed. IF, as has been the case for a century or more, States fail in their 10th Amendment duty to nullify/interpose, then the only recourse is secession or rebellion. And since State governments have been so completely subservient to the federal Leviathan, only a mobilized and incensed State citizenry can compel their respective legislatures to appropriately act in the citizens' defense. And if legislatures continue to fail to resist federal overreach, which is likely, then it is the duty of the People in those States to compel such legislative resistance. (Note: despite what the revisionists and propagandists have asserted over the years, secession and rebellion are not one and the same. Secession is lawful and intentionally peaceful, and recognizes a State's authority to withdraw from this voluntary union of States. Only if a State (or States) is forcibly denied its residual right to secede, then as independent nations it is duty-bound to defend its sovereignty. A simple matter of defense v rebellion. And, of course, to garner domestic support for its lawless & reckless action, the federal tyrant will label that defensive war as rebellion. Thus, Lincoln's cynical and errant "rebel" epithet hurdled against the Confederate States of America.)

The short of it is that Nullification is sooooooo much simpler. But, alas, until a State understands its duty to assert its legitimate authority in this regard and is willing to act accordingly, it may retreat ti grovelling until the federal usurpation becomes so injurious or oppressive as to compel the State to withdraw. But, to be clear, secession should be tried only if nullification fails or is otherwise impossible to pull off. In any event, in the face of overreach and/or tyranny both secession and rebellion are perfectly legitimate remedies.

My understanding is that the founders implied a logical series of resistance steps: civil disobedience, State Nullification/Interposition, rebellion OR secession. My lingering question remains: at what point will Texas--and every other red or purple State-- properly and aggressively NULLIFY unconstitutional federal actions, without which there can be no constitutional order or Rule of Law?!?!? Ignorance of their constitutional authority? Or, what is more likely, their menial acceptance of their vassalage and their fear of losing federal handouts?

War Powers Resolution Revisited

Re Iran, N. Korea and other potential hotspots worldwide, interest in the WAR POWERS ACT (1973) is front and center yet again. To get a better handle on the subject, I checked out the Congressional Research Services, upon which Congress heavily relies when divining WPA meaning and both presidential and congressional authority in that regard, as well as the analyses of WPA by both the American Bar Association and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Distilling all that legalese into a sensible summary was challenging, but in the most abbreviated form possible, here it is:

1. WPA, or War Powers Resolution, requires the "collective judgement" of both the President and Congress before the President may commit military force, except when "repelling a sudden attack" upon the USA itself.

2. The President must "consult" with Congress before committing armed forces into existing or "imminent hostilities".

3. RE the "legislative veto", unless Congress approves continued deployment of military forces, US forces must be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of deployment, except if Congress is unable to act owing to an armed attack on the USA itself.

4. As to preemptive attacks by the USA on states or other entities that constitute a WMD or otherwise imminent threat to the homeland, such preventive or preemptive attacks appear to be a legitimate exercise of Presidential authority--unless Congress specifically prohibits such action, something not likely since preemptive attacks occasioned by imminent threats to the homeland will have already taken place, this owing to the emergent character of those situations.

Since the CRS analysis both cites and explains the constitutional bases for US deployments all the way back to the Korean War, and since it mercifully avoided the murky ambiguity of lawyerly explication and pedantry, CRS was the best and clearest summary. And, again, it is the CRS analysis upon which both Congress and the President traditionally rely for guidance.

Demonrat Political Goals & America's Future

Folks, the Demonrat leadership isn't kidding. And, sadly, most loyal Demonrat voters are clueless as to their leadership's nefarious intentions. The Demonrat Party absolutely wants open borders for two reasons: 1) to advance its suicidal and ephemeral globalist, borderless dream of centralized world government where sovereign nations no longer exist and, of course, the elites of the world are in charge; 2) their party-first goal to enhance the number of future Demonrat/globalist-leaning voters to ensure that #1 is achieved.

There is absolutely NOTHING lofty or rational about either ambition. They are both alien to American beliefs and subversive of American values and traditions.

History teaches that such soft-headed short-sightedness and ignorance of Natural Law always lead to painful social upheaval, terrible economic hardship and dictatorship. And, thus, the historical cycle continues.

Tonight, I periodically tuned into the Dimwit Debacle, aka Debate, and am no less alarmed by the inanity, myopia, dishonesty, hypocrisy, adolescence and penchant for VERY BIG government shamelessly and embarrassingly displayed by every single candidate on that stage of fools. (Rome's promises of bread-and-circuses came immediately to mind: promise anything and everything, no matter how inane or un-doable, so long as my place in the Sun is assured.)

The only useful thing that would happen were the Demonrats to take over in 2020 is the desperate and widespread secession movement which would surely ensue among the red and purple States--and, of course, the dissolution of what is now an essentially dysfunctional union anyway.

Unless We the People magically experience an epiphany and return to constitutional order, common sense, public integrity and public virtue, the union is unquestionably on life support. My humble take: a Demonrat takeover in DC would merely hasten a much-needed political divorce among the already deeply ideologically divided States. To my way of thinking, whatever serves to restore constitutional order and Liberty is fine by me. If we can't accomplish that worthy goal on a national level, then accomplishing it on a State or regional level is perfectly sane and sensible. Bottom line: Liberty must be preserved, whatever the cost. Let our Founders be our guide.

SCOTUS Opines on Citizenship Question

SCOTUS has opined that 1) federal judges have no constitutional authority in gerrymandering cases, and that 2) on the issue of including the citizenship question in the 2020 census, further explanation is needed from the Commerce Dept. to justify such an insertion before the court can render a decision.

On the latter, I am flummoxed. The only thing that comes to mind is that the Administration sloppily prepared its argument. The point is that our founders never envisioned that elected representatives would be apportioned according to the number of "inhabitants", but upon the number of voting citizens, the latter upon whom Hamilton asserted the republic must rely. 

Simply put, when it comes to electing our representatives, we don't rely upon the loyalty and faithfulness to the Constitution of non-citizens. That would be reckless and irrational. Permitting non-citizens to be calculated in this representation formula would be subversive of our founding principles. That said, common sense dictates that ALL inhabitants should be counted so we may properly know who lives here and in what status, legal or otherwise, they may be. Let's hope that this time the Commerce Dept consults some scholarly constitutional experts when preparing its case. Sadly, of course, that's no guarantee that a majority of SCOTUS justices will be swayed by any well-developed, strict interpretations of the Constitution on ANY matter coming before it. We have long ago come to terms with that painful reality.