Question: If the Supreme Court orders the Texas governor to allow fentanyl-laced drug mules to perform trans surgeries, which will result in victims being trafficked into the shemale porn market, the Texas governor will Should I follow?
Now that I have your attention, before I get into the main topic, let me first check all the celebratory boxes.I'm excited about what Texas Governor Greg Abbott has to say. line in the sand This letter, addressed to the U.S. Supreme Court and all tyrannical federal governments, has been likened by some to the Declaration of Independence.
I'm relieved by early reports that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is missing the mark when it comes to legal defense of states' rights to protect their borders. I was wrong.
i am surprised at that 25 Republican governors Not just the front-runner for Republican president, but nationally as well. donald trump They rallied very quickly to help the state of Texas, its governor, and the people (and therefore the American people, too, since it's not just a Texas border issue).
And finally, don't even get me started Ted Cruz's Civil War Mutton Chops. majestic.
But (and you probably also foresaw this happening)…
We are not a nation ruled by law, and we have never been a nation ruled by law. We are and always will be a nation with political will.
Despite all this good news, there are still some Tory blue-checkers who don't want to smell free air. After the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Texas, they immediately raised alarm flags and argued that there was actually no order in place for Texas to follow.
Which brings me back to the question I originally posed. Because this border battle is important, as important as it is an existential issue, and what we are fighting now is much more than a single issue.
In fact, this fight is about all the issues we hold dear.
The truth is that the Supreme Court has no clear constitutional authority to issue constitutional judgments. any order. Or maybe I misread Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 when he said the judiciary had “neither force nor will.” Oh, those on our side who rush to defend our enemy's foolish premise of judicial supremacy without participating in what may be the most consequential constitutional moment of our lives. Please say that you are not really on our side!
Whether Florida Governor Ron DeSantis decides to run for president or not, what's currently on the table for public debate is the fact that he's been at the top of his game in the Sunshine State since 2020, while many other governors have struggled. This is nothing but a very popular rule.
At that time, he reintroduced a fundamental American principle to a starving and desperate nation: the principle of subjugation (or “intervention”). That's why we have government agencies. That's why we have the Tenth Amendment, which says that any powers not expressly given to the federal government are given to the states. This is why constitutional amendments require the approval of a supermajority of states. That's why we even have “our fellow” jurors.
All of that falls apart when you are faced with that idea. anything If unelected judges or federal bureaucrats want to give orders, they must be enforced by the captive state, in which case the captive state has no choice but to submit.
Nonsense!
It’s officially time to “keep Texas out of the way”! But I've been fooled so many times in the past by people who claim the flag of a constitutional republic (if they can keep it) that turns out to be nothing more than cheap shit, so I'm not sure if we can hold it together. I can't believe it is. Cherish this important moment.
But everyone, look around you. Did the 101st Airborne parachute into Austin and unleash hell to charge Greg Abbott with sedition? Are Navy Seals swimming in the Rio Grande as we speak? Are we following the orders of the U.S. Supreme Court?
no.
Once again, Hamilton from Federalist 78“The truth may be that courts have no coercive power or will, but merely pass judgment, and must ultimately rely on the assistance of the executive branch for the validity of their judgments.''
efficacy is the keyword here. Because it clearly demonstrates the executive's authority to sue Ron Burgundy with all his might and say to his face in court, “I don't believe you.''
The Supreme Court's legal ruling is completely unconstitutional garbage. So Abbott isn't forcing it. If the judges have a problem with it, there is something called an election (for now), and at a later date, the final lower judges, “We the People,” can take up the issue.
If the people want us to police the garbage in our courts, they can eliminate us like garbage through elections. But in this country, the people created the constitution, and they should have the final say on its meaning, not unelected judges or bureaucrats.
America's founders did not pledge “life, fortune, and sacred honor” to change from fighting red coats to black robes. The signers of the Declaration of Independence, who later saw their plantations set on fire and bloodied in battle in protest of “no taxation without representation,” believed that the result was “completely depraved.” It was never intended to be “something that comes out of the guts of someone who did it.” The elite, not directly responsible to the people, has now become an irrevocable law. ”
So if you're starting to feel like the courts don't have as much power as you think, we may have a chance.
We are not a nation ruled by laws, and never have been. We are and always will be a nation with political will.
It's time for 30 million Texans to tell the five Supreme Court Justices to bend their minds and remind us all of the most important lesson. It means that on every important issue we could have done the same thing all along.
