ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, December 09, 2020

So that didn't age well

A legal expert explains why the Texas lawsuit is preposterous and it is unlikely the Supreme Court will take on the case:

On Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against four battleground states, alleging they made unconstitutional changes to their voting laws before the 2020 election.

Paxton claims that had Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin kept their voting laws the same – not expanding voting by mail, for example, because of the pandemic – President Donald Trump would have won reelection.

Steve Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, told Texas Standard that Paxton's suit is "preposterous" and unlikely to be heard by the Supreme Court – the only court that has jurisdiction in this case because it's one state suing another.

"I think what this really is is an effort to try to force the Supreme Court's hand. You know, we've heard about these cases going on in each of the states ... and I think this is the attorney general trying to jump the queue and basically say, hey, Supreme Court, it's now or never; you've got to resolve this election," Vladeck said.

There's a couple reasons the court likely won't take on Paxton's case. One is that it's never been done before – the Supreme Court has never taken on a case between states that seeks to alter the outcome of an election. Also, similar lawsuits are already working their way through state courts, and that's where the Supreme Court usually prefers such cases be resolved, Vladeck says. Even though the high court has so-called original jurisdiction in this case, it usually stays out of cases that haven't worked their way through lower courts first.

"The court doesn't like its original jurisdiction because it asks the court to function as a trial court; it's used to functioning as an appellate court," Vladeck said. "And so the court's M.O., even in high-profile cases, even in politically sensitive cases, is if the issues are being addressed through cases in other courts involving other parties, the court will stay out of the original cases like this."

And this is prima facie evidence why you should never take seriously anything a so-called legal expert says that is reported by the media, given that only a few hours later, the Supreme Court accepted the case and ordered the defendants to reply.

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday evening, December 8 ordered Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia to reply to a lawsuit filed this week by Attorney General of Texas Ken Paxton.

Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Missouri have all joined Texas as co-plaintiffs. But don't worry, fraudsters! Another legal expert claims that there is no possible way that the States have standing.

Paul Smith, a professor and election law expert at Georgetown University’s law school, told Reuters that there is “no possible way the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes.”

Remember, these people don't speak the truth. They're just sorcerers casting spells, hoping to invoke their desired reality by speaking it into being.

Labels: ,

89 Comments:

Blogger MJ December 09, 2020 8:20 AM  

Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina. Looks like we're gettin' the band back together!

Blogger ÆtherCzar December 09, 2020 8:21 AM  

If Alabama has joined in, I haven't seen it yet. Our Attorney General did offer a supportive tweet. I trust we'll see some action today to follow up on the words.

Blogger Kirk December 09, 2020 8:21 AM  

Next, there is no possible way this morbid decision of SCOTUS can be enforced.

And next: This is an unprecedented attack on democracy. Military sould drag Trump out of the Whitehouse. (see the irony?)

Finally: Biden should ignore the SCOTUS and form a government. ANTIFA & BLM should burn, loot and kill with Peaceful protests.

Blogger MetalMilitia December 09, 2020 8:21 AM  

Thank you, Vox, for having this site. I found you two weeks ago looking for something...anything amid the total suppression by the MSM of reporting the colossal fraud and theft of our election. Cross the Rubicon, Mr. President!

Blogger Nostromo December 09, 2020 8:22 AM  

At some point, the MSM is going to have to stop putting their f in ngers in their ears, and saying "I can't hear you!" That point will be... no... they will never stop.

Blogger Bearbrained Schemer December 09, 2020 8:27 AM  

These left wing gammas, blue hairs, sea cattle, never Trumpers, and media pundits will be in denial until a recently inaugurated Trump has the cuffs slapped on them for treachery, sedition, or and/or insurrection.

It will truly be a thing to behold. It's such a great time to be alive.

Blogger Unknown December 09, 2020 8:30 AM  

Hmmm, let me try this spell casting stuff:
110,110,110,110,110 (repeat ad nauseum in hopes 110 comes ASAP).

Thank you so much for your work VD, words cannot describe how grateful I am. Merry Christmas!

Blogger Thinker Bear December 09, 2020 8:31 AM  

Thanks Vox, for the encouragement during this time.

Blogger Pratisara December 09, 2020 8:31 AM  

Words like expert, sources, authority, senior etc are used to put people in a trance - unless they are self aware.

Blogger basementhomebrewer December 09, 2020 8:33 AM  

no possible way the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes

Great, then we can wait till the Harris administration enacts legislation that materially damages citizens of Texas and SCOTUS can declare that latches applies.

In all seriousness, no matter what happens here the Rubicon needs to be crossed. SCOTUS handing GEOTUS the win is all well and good but the likes of Rhodes, Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Weissman etc can not be allowed to continue to live free on the streets and influence people in the government.

BTW on the Rubicon crossing front, are we coming up on 4 weeks of no public sightings of Haspel? 3 weeks since the rumor started circulating?

Blogger Shane Bradman December 09, 2020 8:38 AM  

"Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Missouri have all joined Texas"
I like the smell of this. Let's raise the stakes.

Blogger PeopleMakerBear December 09, 2020 8:40 AM  

The more we see the democrats continue down their path of insanity, the more it seems that major conflict is on the horizon. If Trump gets back into power either through a supreme court decision or through the insurrection act, these people need to be dealt with. If the ladder occurs, it would seem to be more likely that this would happen. If the former, I hold little hope these people will face the punishment they deserve. Additionally, this would also lend more creditability to the idea that this is all a show we are watching and we have never voted in a US president.

Blogger Delaware Blue Hen December 09, 2020 8:40 AM  

If TX wins with this suit, it should follow up on its success by suing sanctuary states for illegally increasing their representation in Congress via the encouragement of illegal aliens to settle in their states. I am surprised that no one had tried that tack before.

Blogger Balkan Yankee December 09, 2020 8:40 AM  

Doesn't the Supreme Court know that reality is made out of words?! That when The Media defines reality according to its dictates, the rest of us - including the Nine Robed Ones - must accept that definition as gospel?!

Blogger Stilicho December 09, 2020 8:41 AM  

The Powell suits have some teeth but are based on factual evidence that the Supreme Court will avoid like the plague if it can, so those suits will take time to resolve at the trial court level (despite dismissals, Powell's evidence isn't going away--if the appellate courts don't reverse, they will be re-filed in state courts or seeking different relief).

The TX suit, on the other hand, does not involve contested facts and is framed in "clean" constitutional issues that SCOTUS likes to address.

Blogger glueballs December 09, 2020 8:43 AM  

Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Missouri have all joined Texas as co-plaintiffs.

State AGs are politicians. They do not wish to appear as fools in public. The Texas cert is on full global display. What do the Debbie Downers believe motivated the filing and piling on here, career suicide?

The “experts” can always slink back to their law caves, as they will. Remember ZoomDick Toobin? That’s a representative legal expert for you as with Alan Dershowitz of Epstein Island -- Steve Vladeck and Paul Smith are not even that level of “expert” although clearly they are vying.

Blogger John Regan December 09, 2020 8:44 AM  

Those "legal expert" opinions are really off. They think the SCOTUS can refuse to hear a suit between the states like they can deny a petition for a writ of certiorari. But the latter are part of the "discretionary" docket; suits between states fall under "original jurisdiction". The SCOTUS has to take up the Texas case.

Blogger Doc December 09, 2020 8:44 AM  

Exactly. And sometimes the spell shatters devouring the sorcerer

Blogger PJW Gent December 09, 2020 8:47 AM  

The trickle has become a flow on its way, we hope, to a flood that washes away the scales from the country's eyes, exposing the obvious truth so that all can see who really stands naked on an honest playing field in the cold piercing light of reality. Out the shade, out the lies, oh what surprises shall come to fore.

Blogger Rick December 09, 2020 8:47 AM  

They give themselves away.
All assets deployed.
Soon: all assets seized.

Blogger Rick December 09, 2020 8:49 AM  

GEOTUS just nowus:

“We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”

Blogger Harambe December 09, 2020 8:50 AM  

NO ONE NAMES THEIR CHILD PAUL SMITH. His real name is probably Pauli Goldsmith or something to that effect.

Blogger Doktor Jeep December 09, 2020 8:56 AM  

Florida was able to pull it off properly and by the date. Ballots are tracked, envelopes must be signed. The only messing around was probably on the postal level but I do not know any Trump voters who mailed in an absentee ballot. When your postman looks like he just got off a boat yesterday you are not so in inclined to trust him with your ballot.
Florida has every right to sue.

Blogger Silent Draco December 09, 2020 9:01 AM  

"no possible way the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states ..." blithely ignore Article IV, Section concerning "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

/sarc on
Not to worry, those public Acts and judicial Proceedings that undermine plenary powers and the value of *your* electors aren't something to worry your pretty little heads over. Just shut up, we explain.
/sarc off

Fist thought that came to mind; haven't read the Texas brief, need more coffee first. Second thought was that regardless of process or outcomes, ugly is about to get redefined.

Blogger Cinqueports December 09, 2020 9:07 AM  

1. Very encouraging.
2. Technically SCOTUS has not yet accepted the case. It has ordered the respondents to appear and reply to the pending motion for leave to file the Bill of Complaint.
3. The factual assertions stating the cause of action are all public acts of the various respondent states' executive departments. The motion is accompanied by and references an Appendix that would demonstrate prima facie evidence of the public acts. Courts can take judicial notice of public acts of state executives without testimony.
4. TX asserts in it prayer for relief that the case is teed up for summary disposition. TX may be right.
5. Technically I could qualify as an "expert" on these matters just as any reasonably competent attorney could (and reasonable general competence is all that I claim). I would not trust my own prognostications regarding anything SCOTUS may do in any particular case; and I do know several people who have practiced in SCOTUS and none of them would make sweeping predictions in any case. Mssrs. Vlaceck and Smith are in no position to predict anything.

Blogger Cedric December 09, 2020 9:09 AM  

The President says they will be intervening in the Texas case. Does this mean the Federal Government will join?

Blogger Yossarian December 09, 2020 9:10 AM  

Was he a legal expert in Bird Law?

Blogger Giraffe December 09, 2020 9:10 AM  

This is a preview of the secession map.

Blogger Joseph Dooley December 09, 2020 9:10 AM  

We all see the fraud, and we're supposed to believe that every civil authority in the land can do nothing about it. We need new authorities.

Blogger LR December 09, 2020 9:11 AM  

"They're just sorcerers," casting spells.
DR SLEEP is a great movie to understand our elite opponents.

Pulp horror it might be but the modus operandi of its mundane band of RV-campers-cum-kid-snatchers resembles that of our hypnotic, demonic media.

SLEEP it commands. EAT it commands. SEE what we see. THINK what we tell you to think.

A standing ovation for the Texas AG and any other AG who joins him.

I have no doubts AT ALL about President Trump's victory.

Because I have no doubts at all about wickedness of his elite opponents.

The basis of that wickedness is nothing more or less than sustained hatred for the truth of the incarnation.

Blogger T.L. Ciottoli December 09, 2020 9:15 AM  

Civil War 2.0

Blogger SemiSpook37 December 09, 2020 9:21 AM  

Well, these same "experts" were reading that denying injunctive relief was de facto case denial, too. Not everyone is as stupid as these idiots think we are.

Blogger LoneWolf December 09, 2020 9:28 AM  

Short of a massive turning to God in a spirit of repentance and willingness to abandon the materialism which pervades the entirety of American culture, we are done. The abject degradation of that culture is on display for everyone to see if they will but look at it. That pervasive degradation is a sign of impending doom.

Blogger Silly but True December 09, 2020 9:28 AM  

“Alter the outcome of an election.”

The narrative war continues.

It may never have taken a case which altered the outcome of election but that hyperbole is moot: this isn’t that case. Trump won the election, and this case is about preserving that outcome in face of illegal counts; this is exactly the problem of Bush v Gore, albeit on wider scale between States rather than within a State between counties.

Blogger pyrrhus December 09, 2020 9:31 AM  

The Court finds standing when it wants to take the case, and doesn't find it otherwise..For example, in Roe v Wade the Court invented a new rule of standing to take a case that was actually moot...

Blogger Kraemer December 09, 2020 9:43 AM  

Trying to save the US from "progress" again? Hope this one turns out better than the last attempt

Blogger rondo1342 December 09, 2020 9:43 AM  

I hope the current MO AG (Eric Schmitt) follows in Josh Hawley's footsteps and primaries swamp slug RINO senator Roy Blunt in 2022...Hawley was MO AG before unseating "Air" Claire McCaskill in '18

Blogger My Shield Is Disgust December 09, 2020 9:44 AM  

I wonder if the report on foreign interference in the election (pursuant to the 2018 executive order) will be the catalyst for the GRAND RUBICON CROSSING.

Blogger Taignobias December 09, 2020 9:48 AM  

All the media coven is chanting the spell: "last ditch effort to overturn the election," "will be dismissed," etc.

As Elijah unto the priests of Baal: "Call him louder!"

Blogger Krymneth December 09, 2020 9:51 AM  

basementhomebrewer wrote:In all seriousness, no matter what happens here the Rubicon needs to be crossed.

The Rubicon being crossed is inevitable. The Left/Cabal will not just "let" Trump retain the Presidency. God Himself could manifest and declare that Trump is His President and they still would not accept it.

The game now isn't about avoiding the Rubicon, it's about getting as much consent from the governed as possible to do it. A Supreme Court win here is nothing but gain for the President. It won't prevent the need to cross the Rubicon, but there's that many more people on the margin who will not lift a finger to intervene, and that many more on the margin who will outright approve of what is being done.

Don't look at whether or not this stroke or that stroke will be the final victory or cause the opponent to give up, look at how it changes who supports whom and by how much. A Supreme Court win isn't the final victory and it won't make the Cabal give up, and it isn't the masterstroke that makes the entire rest of the country suddenly realize Trump is 100% right forever... but it still moves the map a nice, worthwhile chunk in Trump's direction.

(The people who will be whining that Trump stacked the court are the same people who wouldn't be convinced by God Almighty; that whine will count for a great deal less than the media will try to make it sound.)

Blogger Stilicho December 09, 2020 9:53 AM  

@Cinqueports exactly. I concur with your five points and anyone trying to read the tea leaves w/r/t SCOTUS at this point is blowing smoke. This is uncharted territory for SCOTUS as well. Pure politics plays a role as does the individual justices' views of the court's role. The only prediction I would make at this point is that they will hear the case and the Roberts and the other 3 leftists will vote in favor of a Biden victory... but I freely admit that is just speculation.

Blogger Peter December 09, 2020 9:54 AM  

Is this the same AG under indictment for securities fraud and bribery; whom 7 of his deputies quit and are suing him because of his corruption. The same AG looking for a presidential pardon that the Justice department is investigating too ?

Blogger Kingkong December 09, 2020 9:59 AM  

So we now have a Civil Legal War between the States.

Blogger Crew December 09, 2020 10:07 AM  

The #LyingMSM also seeks to preemptively de-legitimize any finding by the SC that helps President Trump.

Blogger Desdichado December 09, 2020 10:08 AM  

LoneWolf wrote:Short of a massive turning to God in a spirit of repentance and willingness to abandon the materialism which pervades the entirety of American culture, we are done. The abject degradation of that culture is on display for everyone to see if they will but look at it. That pervasive degradation is a sign of impending doom.
While yeah, that's mostly true, keep in mind that America isn't exactly Sodom and Gomorrah. How many righteous people did the Lord want Abraham to be able to find in order to destroy them? How many righteous people still linger in America in spite of the in your face wickedness that also surrounds us?

This is twisting doctrine a bit to be the Christian version of blackpilling.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 December 09, 2020 10:13 AM  

We need Tuba stings for every time these idiots are wrong. Heck, if I was a billionaire, I'd hire Tuba players to follow these people around all day.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein December 09, 2020 10:15 AM  


Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota and Missouri have all joined Texas as co-plaintiffs...

Looks like,as my elders predicted, the South is rising again!

They would probably be shocked that we traded Georgia for South Dakota, though.
I guess Miss Scarlett was right when she exclaimed,"Yankees in Atlanta?!!!"

Blogger FarmerMatthew December 09, 2020 10:18 AM  

Does anybody know if counties can sign on as co plaintiffs? I live in Washington in a county that is part of Trump country. We have all seen the election maps by county. If counties started signing on that could add a lot of momentum and boost morale nationwide. I can think of a few hundred people that would call our county office.

Blogger rognuald December 09, 2020 10:28 AM  

Texas bringing suit might be a preliminary move to crossing the Rubicon. If the Supreme Court will not uphold the supreme law of the land, then the United States very existence has no legal basis. This then can lead to states leaving the union.

An interesting scenario could arise if Texas and Louisiana both left the Union. As they are on either side of the mouth of the Mississippi River, they control a strategically vital area. What would the federal government do if that happened?

Blogger John Regan December 09, 2020 10:30 AM  

@42

Even taking all that into account, there are nine other states that have signed on. SCOTUS can't very well NOT adjudicate this for practical political reasons as well. They can't be dismissive of nine states.

Also, I heard all this about the TX AG. The proper attitude towards indictments of political figures, particularly Trump loyalists, is skepticism. I'm sure the state v. state lawsuit has been in the works for a long time, I'm sure there have been leaks about it, and it's entirely plausible that the swamp has been gunning for the TX AG in anticipation of just this development.

Blogger Meanoldbasterd December 09, 2020 10:30 AM  

Progress towards what, you utter dimbulb?!

Blogger Harry_the_Horrible December 09, 2020 10:31 AM  

Hurrah for the Bonny Blue flag that bears a Single Star!

Blogger Avalanche December 09, 2020 10:34 AM  

@10 "4 weeks of no public sightings of Haspel"

Do we know where she lives? Someone should drive by and see if they've hung black bunting Mebbe check with the local funeral directors?

Or would she have been buried at sea.... what with so few Cubans tryin' to get here lately, the poor sharks are probably VERY hungry.

Blogger Joe Smith December 09, 2020 10:40 AM  

@41 Stilicho My initial inclination was that Roberts would vote in lockstep with the lefties regardless of the merits, but then I realized he might not want to let Thomas write a majority decision on this. If the other five justices vote in favor of the constitution, do you think Roberts might jump in as the sixth vote just to neuter the decision as much as possible?

Blogger tdcommenter December 09, 2020 10:45 AM  

@47 https://newsthud.com/cowards-news-leaks-why-georgia-republicans-wont-back-trump-with-special-session-the-mob-now-rules/

Southerners need to retake Atlanta. This may be why Trump said that he should have shown more force against the rioters.

Also, in general, Prometheans blazed whole new legal trailways to discover a right to privacy out of the penumbra and emanations of the "living" Constitution. They also warped the 14th to legalized discrimination via disparate impact.

On the flipside, they try to get the Right to defeat themselves by not even trying.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer December 09, 2020 10:46 AM  

A hard thing about being a lawyer was arguing contradictory shit. For client A, you might have to argue "X is good.". For client B, you might have to argue "X is bad."

It takes a certain kind of personality to do this. It is as if to be an effective lawyer, you have to be a psychopath.

Blogger Harris December 09, 2020 10:52 AM  

I could be wrong, but it seems likely to me that the Supreme Court rejected the PA lawsuit because they intended to accept the Texas lawsuit, which would be dispositive on the subject of fraud. Also, the Texas lawsuit that has now been accepted by the Supreme Court, requires state bureaucracies that have been obstructive to reply. Finally, since the Supreme Court is the has primary jurisdiction in the case of states suing other states, this gives them the leeway to be the tryer of facts, and thus does not inhibit them to arguments otherwise employed in the various state courts.

To me, this simplifies the process, because the Supreme Court doesn't have to get into the arcane details of particular state laws in the various states, and determine if and how those laws are affected by the Constitution. I think the Texas lawsuit is a much more straightforward approach to adjudicate the election, and it makes sense to me that the Supreme Court would prefer to cut the Gordian knot by directly looking at the facts of the case, and not get tangled up in the similarities and differences of different state laws.

It remains to be seen if they'll do the right thing, and force the election into the Congress, as it should be. But there remains hope that this will take place.

I know that it has been argued here that the President will do what is necessary. But in my opinion, it would be better for the country as a whole if more than one branch of our Federal government is committed to uphold the rule of law, and not simply the Executive Branch alone. Also, a Court decision in favor of invalidating the elections for federal offices in those states would inspire the weasels in Congress to find a spine. My greater hope is that they find the elections invalid, and that the elections in those states for Congress would also have to be redone. I believe that Perdue would win outright in GA, and that James would win in the Michigan Senate race. It is also possible that the Republicans would retake the Congress.

Finally, a Court decision in favor of invalidating those results would set a precedent for elections in other states for federal offices were also compromised. As a Texan, I have been confused about the notion that the Democrats are on the verge of flipping Texas. If they can compromise the elections in other states via this fraud, who knows how many elections in states other than the 4 named defendants in the Texas lawsuit were also compromised. I tend to believe that many California elections, and elections in other Democrat dominated states are more Republican than we know.

Blogger Billy December 09, 2020 10:55 AM  

“ Remember, these people don't speak the truth. They're just sorcerers casting spells, hoping to invoke their desired reality by speaking it into being.”

Great choice of words bro! Gotta put that into elementary school education in order to make the next generation more resistant to Wizardy. This concept that you and Owen keep talking about is extremely important. At an early age I remember detecting manipulation from adults and HATING it with a purple passion.

Keep scalping these fraudulent fags.

This is how every MSM whore/wizard/henchman sounds to those of us who have realized that they are the ‘shadows on the wall’

“Doctor Tom Foolery is a Grand Wizard at the Super Duper Suprene Experts Nonsense Academy and he’s joining us today to explain why it’s actually healthy for your children to be beaten randomly and treated as the opposite gender of their birth. Dr. Foolery thanks for joining us.”

“Great to be with you Dick. Yes children actually benefit from random violence and being treated as though they are certain to be transgender according to the 1995 Minneapolis Domestic Violence Survey so we should makes some laws based off of our incomplete, but super official findings. I won’t bore you with the details because I’m super smart and you couldn’t possibly understand my datums.”

If you and Owen could interview you in his NPR voice this would be the funniest riff ever. Merry Christmas. Keep crushing, thanks for the morale boost, you’re doing God’s work.

Blogger The Depolrable Podunk Ken Ramsey December 09, 2020 10:58 AM  

Yes, it does look like we are getting the band back together for another gig here in the South. Fun times!

Well in 1876 we had big problems with the electors, too, and that time the Constitution was simply not followed. SCOTUS teamed up with forces in Congress and they made it up as they went along under hot protest from the candidate who had won the popular vote by a mile (and never became president). So not only are all these constitutional and legal scholars potentially very wrong, we have a real big precedent for it.

Politics is people ultimately. So I think there's a good chance SCOTUS will get involved and this doesn't bode well for Joe Biden. He's the guy who destroyed the life of Clarence Thomas, whoops. And that action plus the Bork fiasco also spearheaded by Joe Biden set the stage for today's SCOTUS nomination circuses that even the Notorious RGB openly despised. Kavanaugh and ABC had themselves and their families dragged through the mud in these things.

But worse, Joe Biden won't even say if he plans to pack SCOTUS or not as the rest of Democrat chorus openly chant for it. I do not think that goes over well with anybody not in that chorus, but especially among the justices on the bench. SCOTUS can kill a lot birds with one stone here, Joe has laid himself open in ways that entwine the personal and the political to his great disadvantage.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd December 09, 2020 11:05 AM  

rognuald wrote:If the Supreme Court will not uphold the supreme law of the land, then the United States very existence has no legal basis. This then can lead to states leaving the union.
One or two states could leave the Union. A majority of the states could expel a minority of states from the union. How many states does it take to hold a constitutional convention? That many states could get together and downgrade the other states to territories, or expel them, or whatever.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 09, 2020 11:11 AM  

Yes, I know a Paul Smith. Known him for decades.

Blogger Doktor Jeep December 09, 2020 11:13 AM  

Bet the lefties are wishing the south was left alone right about now.

Blogger Chip Hazard December 09, 2020 11:33 AM  

"I like the smell of this. Let's raise the stakes."

I'm all in.

Blogger Kraemer December 09, 2020 11:45 AM  

Progress towards equality and its dyscivilizational implications. Apologies if it came across wrong.

Blogger The Depolrable Podunk Ken Ramsey December 09, 2020 11:49 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:How many states does it take to hold a constitutional convention?

2/3rds, or 34. Currently 15 or so have passed measures already calling for a Convention of States, per the Constitution. Note that this convention would not be a constitutional convention like most people think of one. It would not resemble the famous one in Philadelphia where they wrote the current Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution empowers the Convention of States to simply propose amendments. Then these amendments would still have to go around and get ratified by all the state legislatures.

So it's a way to pass amendments by going around Congress, really that's all it is. People seem to fear it anyway, maybe thinking it'll start a runaway train or thinking men of today aren't to be trusted over the founders, or whatever. They don't want to give politicos an inch or a window to abuse the public more than they do. Can't blame them there.

Blogger Chip Hazard December 09, 2020 11:50 AM  

@47

Cue the Charlie Daniels song!

I'm actually listening to him right now.

We lost a lot of good people this year. General Yeager, Charlie Daniels, Kenny Rodgers.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd December 09, 2020 12:10 PM  

The Depolrable Podunk Ken Ramsey wrote:2/3rds, or 34.
Yes. 34 states can redefine the union. For example, they could exclude the other 16. Think of it as reverse secession.

Blogger Frozen Territory December 09, 2020 12:15 PM  

Not exactly on topic, but here is some more evidence that we are over the target. The TX AG seems to be under fire.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/11/18/1996595/-Two-Lawyers-Shot-Amid-FBI-Probe-Of-Texas-AG-Ken-Paxton

When the swamp is activating all gators, best not to be a chicken.

Blogger JWM in SD December 09, 2020 12:51 PM  

NOVA of course, where else?

Blogger Uncle John's Band December 09, 2020 1:23 PM  

@42 Peter "Is this the same AG under indictment for..."

This mentally crippled turd outing itself as a shill is about as surprising as the election fraud its beloved law enforcement agencies are complicit in.

Pro tip - for better shilling, be less obviously retarded. Or even better, just go away.

Blogger Azimus December 09, 2020 1:40 PM  

67. Ominous CowherdDecember 09, 2020 12:10 PM
Yes. 34 states can redefine the union. For example, they could exclude the other 16. Think of it as reverse secession.


Yes. No disrespect intended to the South at all, but they should have never put down Old Glory for the Stars and Bars/confederate standards. They should have never given their government another name. That ceded the most important ground of all to the North - Union. The cause of Union was the only cause the North had to get men to stand in front of a musket volley.

If you reversed that as you do above, you knock the floor out from underneath them. God forbid it should ever come to ACW2, but should it happen, I hope the side on the side of liberty and rights doesn't discard the centuries-venerated symbols of liberty and rights because they have material worth on battlefields.

Blogger God Emperor Memes December 09, 2020 2:20 PM  

Jew Lawyer

Blogger Nate December 09, 2020 2:26 PM  

"Yes. No disrespect intended to the South at all, but they should have never put down Old Glory for the Stars and Bars/confederate standards. They should have never given their government another name. That ceded the most important ground of all to the North - Union. The cause of Union was the only cause the North had to get men to stand in front of a musket volley."

you've obviously never seen the First National Flag of the Confederacy.

It IS Old Glory. They only changed the number of the stars.

They had to adopt the use of the battle blag because the flags kept getting confused by soldiers on the battlefield.

Blogger FALPhil December 09, 2020 2:27 PM  

Azimus wrote:Yes. No disrespect intended to the South at all, but they should have never put down Old Glory for the Stars and Bars/confederate standards. They should have never given their government another name. That ceded the most important ground of all to the North - Union. The cause of Union was the only cause the North had to get men to stand in front of a musket volley.

If you reversed that as you do above, you knock the floor out from underneath them. God forbid it should ever come to ACW2, but should it happen, I hope the side on the side of liberty and rights doesn't discard the centuries-venerated symbols of liberty and rights because they have material worth on battlefields.


On the other hand, it is foolish to posit that an entity who voluntarily joins a collective may not voluntarily leave it. Furthermore, the United States Constitution is legal document which specifies limited and enumerated powers of the government of the union. Nowhere in the document is there an enumerated power which permits the government to prevent a state from leaving the union. Lincoln threw the constitution out the White House window. The states that made up the Confederacy were well within their legal rights.

Blogger Newscaper312 December 09, 2020 3:26 PM  

"Union" as a core principle is nonsense. Independence had Ordered Liberty as it's end. Union, uniting in the face of European powers was merely a means.

And during the Civil War, a very big part of the North wanted to let the South go in peace at first, and as bloody war dragged on many more came to that POV. Losing support is part of what drove Lincoln to issue the at-the-time entirely symbolic Emancipation Proclamation: gave the war an added moral element at home, and it appealed to abolitionists in England who were then motivated more strongly to discourage British support for the South.

Remember: Southern elites did secede because of slavery, fearing the abolitionist wing of Republicans, along w other long simmering tensions about tariff burdens, but the North did NOT invade to "free the slaves". And the invasion is why the non slave owning majority of Southerners fought.

Preserving the Union by killing masses their fellow countrymen was so compelling a cause it's why the draft riots occurred as shown in Gangs of New York, with barely off the boat Irish getting drafted for cannon fodder.

Blogger Tom Bombadil December 09, 2020 4:17 PM  

I'm a better sorcerer, I only have to think it ;)

Blogger Azimus December 09, 2020 4:59 PM  

74. FALPhilDecember 09, 2020 2:27 PM
On the other hand, it is foolish to posit that an entity who voluntarily joins a collective may not voluntarily leave it. Furthermore, the United States Constitution is legal document which specifies limited and enumerated powers of the government of the union. Nowhere in the document is there an enumerated power which permits the government to prevent a state from leaving the union. Lincoln threw the constitution out the White House window. The states that made up the Confederacy were well within their legal rights.


I don't disagree with any of this. There's plenty of pragmatic reasons why to create this differentiation, including the mortal mistakes of near-sighted artillery officers (though I find this explanation to be somewhat dubious since union troops were nearly universally in uniform - and not grey - except at the very beginning of the war).

But I am not arguing practical, I'm arguing moral. And morale. Symbols are important. VD said once he is still on Youtube because he sees no reason to concede ground to his enemy. Same is true with the Stars and Stripes, and the idea of "Secession."

The communists have learned this. They no longer march in pompous parades with fluttering red banners, with pretty girls with red scarves tied around their necks. The hammer and sickle are no longer in use. Now they go abroad claiming the American way of life is pro-gay and always has been and anyone who disagrees is not American (paraphrase). Nothing is tied up in a pretty bow of symbols, rather it runs under the radar and makes claim to ours - even the Cross.

They do this because it works. We should too.

Blogger Azimus December 09, 2020 5:16 PM  

75. Newscaper312December 09, 2020 3:26 PM
"Union" as a core principle is nonsense. Independence had Ordered Liberty as it's end. Union, uniting in the face of European powers was merely a means.


By breaking away a piece of the Union, you are threatening the whole union - or at least, that is how it was framed. So even though union forces were invading the south, killing its men raping its women and burning, they were "defending" the union - the country - from aggression.

And during the Civil War, a very big part of the North wanted to let the South go in peace at first, and as bloody war dragged on many more came to that POV. Losing support is part of what drove Lincoln to issue the at-the-time entirely symbolic Emancipation Proclamation: gave the war an added moral element at home, and it appealed to abolitionists in England who were then motivated more strongly to discourage British support for the South.

War itself is the best advocate for peace. The war lost support in the south as well. The Emancipation Proclamation was not popular in the north, this is why Lincoln waited for the "victory" of Antietam to soften the blow. The north was a patchwork of differing feeling regarding emancipation - from the Shaws in New England, to Lincoln who wanted to free the slaves but send them back to Africa, to the Irish riots in New York who did not think fighting for a black slave who would compete with him in the labor market was a noble cause. We could all always research more, but from the reading I've done, my impression of the north was that slavery was an embarrassment to the country, not a single-issue passion.

but the North did NOT invade to "free the slaves." And the invasion is why the non slave owning majority of Southerners fought.

Agreed, certainly. I hope this is widely recognized as the truth beyond VP.

Preserving the Union by killing masses their fellow countrymen was so compelling a cause it's why the draft riots occurred as shown in Gangs of New York, with barely off the boat Irish getting drafted for cannon fodder.

Draftees and Volunteers are entirely different. If Lincoln wouldn't have had a volunteer army motivated by preserving the Union in 1861 (read any journal, any newspaper from 1861), there would have been no war, and the south would have left unmolested.

You say the north was not motivated by Emancipation - I agree.
You say the north was not motivated by Union - I disagree.

I have not discerned what you give your own proposal for the north's popular motivation for the war. If its not union, and not emancipation, what is it? Adventure? Plunder? What?

Blogger Valar Addemmis December 09, 2020 6:07 PM  

Azimus wrote:You say the north was not motivated by Union - I disagree.

I have not discerned what you give your own proposal for the north's popular motivation for the war. If its not union, and not emancipation, what is it? Adventure? Plunder? What?


You assume there needs to be a popular motivation for war to happen. I'd love to hear your explanation for Vietnam.

He said Union is a means, and not an end. That does not mean it was not the "motivation" for the war. Plenty of people never think of ends, and can be easily attracted (or distracted) by means. For a case that might resonate or help make the point here, it could easily be noted that Civic Nationalism is similarly a means and not an end. People can still guide their actions and priorities by it, but at the end of the day they're just propping up a process instead of figuring out (or agreeing) at the end of the day what they really want to do with it.

Blogger Jack Amok December 09, 2020 6:52 PM  

Rather than re-fight the first Civil War, can we just agree the Southerners should've picked their own damn cotton and get ready for the second one?

Blogger Azimus December 09, 2020 7:06 PM  

79. Valar AddemmisDecember 09, 2020 6:07 PM
You assume there needs to be a popular motivation for war to happen. I'd love to hear your explanation for Vietnam.


No, there has to be a popular motivation to "volunteer".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Lincoln%27s_75,000_volunteers

From the wikipedia article on "Union Army" (for what its worth): "Nevertheless, between April 1861 and April 1865, at least 2,128,948 men served in the United States Army, of whom the majority were volunteers."

I have no idea how many men volunteered for Vietnam besides Charlie Sheen.

This is wandering a bit afield from my original point, which was that the southern states should've ejected the northern states and retained the moral high ground by claiming to represent the United States.That would've undercut unionist sentiment, which WAS the primary motivation behind the volunteers who fought for the north. It WAS the primary reason for West Virginia, to bring in another example.

Still we can agree to disagree. I haven't exactly written a book on this that I'm defending a thesis. I just agreed with Ominous Cowherd's thought, and pointe out it would've been useful to the south in 1861. I stand by that, but I don't see a need to squabble over it.

Blogger Heath D December 09, 2020 7:14 PM  

Vladeck and Schmidt, two “great American” names.

Blogger Poco December 09, 2020 7:21 PM  

Check your geography.

Blogger Ransom Smith December 09, 2020 8:06 PM  

Rather than re-fight the first Civil War, can we just agree the Southerners should've picked their own damn cotton and get ready for the second one?
1. No. The South Shall rise again.
2. Also no, I have a bone to pick with Yankees who lie through their teeth about transcontinental shipping of slaves.
3. If you're not already prepared in some capacity you won't ever be.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 10, 2020 9:43 AM  

FALPhil wrote:On the other hand, it is foolish to posit that an entity who voluntarily joins a collective may not voluntarily leave it. Furthermore, the United States Constitution is legal document which specifies limited and enumerated powers of the government of the union. Nowhere in the document is there an enumerated power which permits the government to prevent a state from leaving the union. Lincoln threw the constitution out the White House window. The states that made up the Confederacy were well within their legal rights.
I think that this is the main reason that the Confederate leaders were never charged with Treason: after all, if the motivating assertion that "States aren't allowed to leave" is true, than that would mean the effecting of war upon Confederate States was itself Treason by the Constitution's own definition.

Blogger Valar Addemmis December 10, 2020 11:27 AM  

Azimus wrote:No, there has to be a popular motivation to "volunteer".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Lincoln%27s_75,000_volunteers


I don't know what the Wikipedia states, but at least on IG the first sentence states:

>On April 15, 1861, at the start of the American Civil War, the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, called for a 75,000-man militia to serve for three months following the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter.

I don't know why you assume there needs to be any wider or more comprehensive and strategically coherent public sentiment to rouse the volunteers. The Union had been fired with, and men were called upon to do their civic duty. Please don't jump on, ACW-passionate people - I'm accepting, arguendo, the call for action in order to note that raising the militia required no broader popular motivation in terms of the ACW aims/goals/ends. There are always men looking to flock to a call to arms.

In terms of Vietnam, the >2.6M volunteers in the standing service branches when the war started really outstrip Lincoln's 75k (both in absolute numbers and on a per capita for the population basis). And a standing military where chaos is a ladder in terms of high level promotion takes us even further from the need for a popular motivation in order to go to war (even in an environment with legal compulsory conscription). It's even possible that many joined Lincoln's militia because they assumed conscription was coming later and they wanted to start in a better or more prestigious position than they'd be drafted to. I knew quite a few young people who either joined or seriously considered joining the military proactively after 9/11 specifically to be sure they wouldn't end up in a conscript infantry unit in the desert.

Big picture-wise I agree with both sides here on various elements, which is why I am just engaging on a specific facet of the discussion. Content to agree to disagree, although I don't think there's really much disagreement.

Blogger FALPhil December 10, 2020 2:23 PM  

Azimus wrote:But I am not arguing practical, I'm arguing moral. And morale.

So, you consider it moral to force someone or many someones to stay in a relationship that they do not wish to be in. I find that very interesting. And telling.

Personally, I think you need to reexamine your morals.

Blogger Azimus December 10, 2020 4:21 PM  

86. Valar AddemmisDecember 10, 2020 11:27 AM
Big picture-wise I agree with both sides here on various elements, which is why I am just engaging on a specific facet of the discussion. Content to agree to disagree, although I don't think there's really much disagreement.


I think part of the "condemned to repeat history" axiom is that a lot of the methods and triggers that the common people are manipulated by have been forgotten. When I was young, I wanted to read history of battles - Gettysburg, Atlanta, Vicksburg, Somme, Guadalcanal, Anzio, etc, etc, etc. Now I'm far more interested in civilian histories - how did some of the most awful governments in history manipulated, cajole, harrass, beat populations into submission? Not because I want to use these tools, but I want to recognize them around me, so they can be countered or avoided. I had the privilege of knowing a family of elderly Germans (two brothers and a sister) who grew up in SW Germany and weren't old enough to fight by 1945. Some of the accounts they gave were fascinating, because some of them are happening now in the West. They all died within the last 5 years, but they were worried about what they were seeing, particularly from the left. It reminded them of the left of their childhood.

So for ACW I try to understand what the war looked like for a 20yr old farmer in Michigan, or a cobbler from Pennsylvania, or a farmer from Alabama. Newspapers are good for this, but its only one side of the coin - you don't get to see what the reader thinks. Journals, as they are available, are excellent for that. Its fascinating, particularly from the north where I am from, to read about what they thought they had to do and why.

You make a lot of good points, and I think there isn't much disagreement either.

Blogger Azimus December 10, 2020 4:22 PM  

87. FALPhilDecember 10, 2020 2:23 PM
So, you consider it moral to force someone or many someones to stay in a relationship that they do not wish to be in. I find that very interesting. And telling.


I suggest that you have misunderstood me, rather broadly. My position is posted for you to peruse again if you desire.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts