Update: the civil war in process.

There is a story of the Tet Offensive 50 years on that notes that it was a military victory and a propaganda defeat (Cronkite’s Fake News™). What made it special and different was that it was a coordinated attack on many fronts with regular communist troops. The current civil war may not have regular troops but it does have the propaganda and many fronts. Rozenman touches on a few of the conflicts.

“Where federal law supervenes, state statutes — like those of Colorado and a number of other states, plus the entity known as the District of Columbia — cannot go. A civil war was fought once to settle the matter over another issue some states felt rather strongly about.”

When the Constitution is a ‘buzz-kill’ by Eric Rozenman – “since Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865, nullification has been a very dead letter in U.S. legal theory. However, in 2013 the Obama administration advised federal prosecutors to downgrade if not ignore enforcement of marijuana laws, ostensibly in favor of other crime-fighting priorities.”

“To review: In 1830, Sen. Robert Hayne of South Carolina and Sen. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, staged their famous debate over states’ rights versus national authority, Hayne defending the theory of nullification. Tariff disagreements were the immediate issue, but at bottom the South hoped to establish nullification to protect slavery in individual states from restriction by congressional Northerners.

President Andrew Jackson asserted that nullification amounted to treason, and Congress backed him with the 1833 “Force Bill,” affirming the president’s authority to use the Army to ensure state obedience to federal law. One of Kentucky Sen. Henry Clay’s artful compromises managed to dodge the crisis. Secession would wait another generation.

Ironically, the marijuana legalization effort spread just as the country was in the final throes of its decades-long public health push to tax and stigmatize tobacco use into near extinction.

if not over the putative right to get high by any means convenient, then perhaps school segregation? Establishment of religion?

When rule of law is sacrificed to clamorous infatuation, ugliness issues from Pandora’s box of political expedience. One could imagine a situation in which states and municipalities chose to ignore lawful federal authority on immigration matters and declare themselves “sanctuaries.”

Lincoln was right. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Neither can one with a post-Union mash-up of local, state and federal spheres. Absent those spheres, properly balanced, rule of law can become increasingly nominal, with both union and liberty wafting away on each additional toke over the line.

Does the Washington Post understand the ‘rule of law’? By Jack Hellner – “For eight years the Washington Post and most of the media not only never cared as Obama and Democrats undermined the rule of law; they supported them as they did it.”

“Here is a partial list of things the Post never gave a darn about clear violations of law and Democrats not holding the President to account:

But now the Washington Post is outraged that Republicans are undermining the rule of law because heaven forbid they are asking the Justice Department to explain what they did.

The actual constitutional crisis is when we had a president and others surrounding him that continually ignored the rule of law or actually violated the rule of law and a Justice Department which chose who to prosecute not based on rule of law but based on an agenda or party affiliation.

The Washington Post and others should stop pretending they care about laws or equal treatment under the law based on all their writings the past nine years.

Executive Branch Now Has Custody of Intel Memo For Review Prior to Release by sundance – the war is being fought and steps being taken to recover lost ground.

“The media narrative engineers are busy at work attempting to cloud the constitutional framework behind the accurate, lawful, sequence of steps surrounding the Nunes House Intel Memo. Don’t fall for the tricks.

The legislative branch has now voted in committee to declassify the House Intelligence Memo on FISA-702 abuse, and systemic fraudulent DOJ/FBI use therein. The memo has been sent to the executive branch for review and public release approval.

Memo war: GOP to release memo aimed at Justice Department, while Dems push memo aimed at GOP by Byron York – “Every Republican voted to make the GOP memo public, while every Democrat voted against it.”

“But there was also a rare moment of bipartisanship for the bitterly divided panel. At the same meeting, Republicans and Democrats voted unanimously to make the Democratic memo — the counter-memo to the Republican document — available to all members of the House.

To no one’s surprise, ranking Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was the first to make it to the cameras after the meeting Monday. He noted that the committee had voted to make the Democratic memo available to “members of the House that have been misled by the majority’s memorandum.” But he also spoke in a way that might have led a casual listener to conclude Republicans had voted to keep the memo completely under wraps. At one point he referred to “if and when the majority allows the minority memorandum to see the light of day.”

The Democratic memo, which like the Republican memo is classified and can only be viewed in a secure room, is an attempt to discredit the GOP document without making any larger point about the Trump-Russia investigation, said Republicans who have seen it.

“It was written by attorneys as a rebuttal to our memo, but it’s not going to move their argument forward,” noted one Republican member who has read the Democratic paper. “It’s too detailed, too confusing, and far more personal — they go after [Nunes] again and again.

For their part, committee Democrats called their memo “a counter-argument to all of the errors and inaccuracies in the majority memo” (Rep. Denny Heck of Washington) and “a mountain of evidence in the Trump-Russia investigation” (Rep. Eric Swalwell of California) and “an accurate rendition of the underlying facts” (Schiff).

It’s in everyone’s interest for both the Republican and Democratic memos to ultimately become public. Voters deserve to see the best case that Nunes can make versus the best case that Schiff can make. In addition, the public will need to see at least some of the underlying intelligence to be confident that each side is using that intelligence honestly. To some degree, the credibility of the larger Trump-Russia investigation depends on it.

Put it in front of the people. They are the ones fundamentally accountable and also those who will feel the consequences. Think Venezuela for the latest example of where complacency will take you.

Comments are closed.