2020 Senate & House

[Monahorns]

However, they don't have the right not to follow the law or interfere with federal enforcement of the law, because immigration law is within the federal government's legitimate authority. If Gavin Newsome issued an executive order saying the State of California wouldn't use E-Verify to screen state employees, federal officials would be within their rights to arrest him, charge him with a crime, and toss him in "federal-pound-me-in-the-***-prison," to quote Michael Bolton.

I agree but there is also a thing called nullification that is the right of states if they believe a law is unconstitutional. It isn't something you hear much about these days, but the founding generation talked about this right. Various states talked about it for the first 50-60 of the union.

I don't know if there is a reasonable case to say e-verify is unconstitutional.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I agree but there is also a thing called nullification that is the right of states if they believe a law is unconstitutional. It isn't something you hear much about these days, but the founding generation talked about this right. Various states talked about it for the first 50-60 of the union.

I'm familiar with the nullification doctrine. I'm generally a pro-states' rights guy, but I'm a pretty strong nullification skeptic for two reasons. First, I don't see much evidence that the Founding Fathers intended it at the time the Constitution was written. To my knowledge, though it was brought up early on, it was still after the Constitution was ratified.

Second, it seems to conflict with or at least severely undermine some critical text of the Constitution, and even my support for states' rights takes a back seat to textualism. Nullification would effectively eliminate the judicial power clause that gives federal courts the power to decide all "Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States . . ." It would severely undermine the supremacy clause as well, because any state that doesn't like a federal law (even a constitutional one) could just nullify it.

Having said that, from a policy standpoint, I would choose traditional nullification over what we have now, which is essentially federal nullification over state laws through the 14th Amendment. The Founders would undoubtedly advocate violent revolution to kill that garbage system off. It is a disgrace far more abusive than anything done by King George III or the British Parliament.

The appropriate remedy for a federal government that abuses its power and violates the Constitution is secession. There is no constitutional prohibition against it (even after the Civil War), so under the Tenth Amendment, it is permissible. Hell, the United States' existence is dependent on the right of people to secede from an oppressive power.

I don't know if there is a reasonable case to say e-verify is unconstitutional.

Certainly under current judicial interpretations, it isn't. However, even if we didn't have a judiciary bent heavily in favor of left wing federal activism, it would be pretty easy to constitutionally defend mandatory E-Verify.

 

[Monahorns]

The appropriate remedy for a federal government that abuses its power and violates the Constitution is secession. There is no constitutional prohibition against it (even after the Civil War), so under the Tenth Amendment, it is permissible. Hell, the United States' existence is dependent on the right of people to secede from an oppressive power.

I agree. But I think nullification could be a better, less disruptive alternative for States when something is very clearly unconstitutional.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I agree. But I think nullification could be a better, less disruptive alternative for States when something is very clearly unconstitutional.

In the short term, it might be less disruptive, but in the long term, you'd lose the rule of law at the federal level. Conservative states would nullify liberal federal laws, and liberal states would nullify conservative federal laws. Long term, I think you'd end up with a civil war anyway.

Secession might be a more dramatic an disruptive move, but it doesn't have to lead to war. Agreements can be negotiated and reached. For example, if Scotland and the Welsh one day leave the UK, nobody thinks the Scots, Welsh, and the English would go to war. They'd likely negotiate a separation agreement that keeps the facets of the union that all parties like and dump the ones they fight over. Same thing could happen in the US.

 

[Monahorns]

No option has to lead in civil war. Nullification could cause the Federal government to be more circumspect about enacting unconstitutional law. Or it could lead to secession. No reason to link it to war.

 

[theiioftx]

Secession on both sides would be the answer. The libs would have the four corners - California, Washington State, New York, and Florida. Sprinkle in surrounding states in the NE, NW and West and you have the United States of Liberals. Minnesota becomes Somalia North.

Every other state becomes the new USA.

 

[Joe Fan]

Planned Parenthood is preparing to spend $40 Million to influence the 2020 elections. Tell me again why they get subsidies from the US taxpayer?

This seems cruel and unusual
Their political fundraising includes the sale of baby merchandise

 

[Joe Fan]

My idea --
(1) End anchor baby citizenship (all it takes is a piece of paper and a pen)
(2) Put a small fee/tax on remittances to fund the wall and everything else related to immigration enforcement. There is a huge untapped cash flow to the fed govt just sitting there waiting
(3) Wall (would only take 2 years to build it in all the places it can easily be built)
(4) Everyone not here legally out
(5) Labor may then re-enter to work using a biometric id card (DNA, fingerprints, photos, whatever works best) - purchased just like a Disney pass, for a certain specific time ($25 for a day, $50 for a week, $100 for 3 months and so on). I dont really love Disney but their park entry system is fairly efficient - why not just steal their idea?. When time is up, they must return. And if they do it right, may return again and again. Put this burden on them, not the small business owner/farmer

Progress

 

[Mr. Deez]

No option has to lead in civil war. Nullification could cause the Federal government to be more circumspect about enacting unconstitutional law. Or it could lead to secession. No reason to link it to war.

It doesn't have to lead to war. However, my worry is that nullification creates the illusion of fair play and good faith. The most ideological states will nullify federal laws they don't like but pretend that their nullification is a constitutional concern and then expect other states to respect federal power in other situations. I fear that will eventually boil over into violence when people figure out it was all BS.

Secession solves that fraud, because the states can just become independent and write their own rules. There is no pretense of federal supremacy. If California wants to form a godless, socialist utopia with a permanent underclass of third world slave labor, they can just be honest about it and do it without it affecting the sane parts of the country.

 

[Monahorns]

It doesn't have to lead to war. However, my worry is that nullification creates the illusion of fair play and good faith. The most ideological states will nullify federal laws they don't like but pretend that their nullification is a constitutional concern and then expect other states to respect federal power in other situations. I fear that will eventually boil over into violence when people figure out it was all BS.

It's logical. With many things the founders talked about, nullification was something to only be used in extreme cases by those who did honestly want to abide by the Constitution and play fair. But politicians today don't have the same demeanor towards law or the Constitution.

I still support nullification. I still support secession. But also hope the USA can stay as it is, if possible.

 

[Joe Fan]

Dems spent a ton on this Texas seat (Houston area) and the natl media are watching and hoping, but so far so good

 

[Mr. Deez]

Dems spent a ton on this Texas seat (Houston area) and the natl media are watching and hoping, but so far so good

The lead held. He beat her 58-42. Apparently multiple presidential candidate weighed in on the race, and Beta made flipping it a big priority after his campaign fizzled out. Link.

What's noteworthy is that Gates wasn't a particularly strong candidate. However, he busted his ***. He worked very hard, and it paid off.

 

[Joe Fan]

The lead held. He beat her 58-42. Apparently multiple presidential candidate weighed in on the race, and Beta made flipping it a big priority after his campaign fizzled out. Link.

What's noteworthy is that Gates wasn't a particularly strong candidate. However, he busted his ***. He worked very hard, and it paid off.

Female running in a suburban district. And they spent alot of money, including more Soros money down the drain

 

[Joe Fan]

The NRSC and GOP are flipping out over Doug Collins' announcement for Senate.

Loeffler was Governor Kemp's hand-picked Senator to replace Isakson who just retired. Other than the female part, Loeffler is a typical old school Rep pick, a big money donor to the Rs. Kemp personally went to DC to try and convince Trump about her. But Trump preferred Collins.

Loeffler is wealthy and had donated a lot to campaigns, including at least one Democrat. She also had the bad sense to donate to Mitt Romney for Senate. Worse is that she is weak on immigration and abortion. This is part of why Kemp thought she would pull in the suburban Atlanta female vote. But my guess is that Collins will crush her since he is so closely tied to Trump (although Loeffler is much hotter than Collins). This matter shows there is still a huge gap between Senate Rs and Trump & his voting base.

 

[Joe Fan]

.. Worse is that she is weak on immigration and abortion. This is part of why Kemp thought she would pull in the suburban Atlanta female vote. But my guess is that Collins will crush her since he is so closely tied to Trump (although Loeffler is much hotter than Collins). This matter shows there is still a huge gap between Senate Rs and Trump & his voting base.

Speaking of "weak on immigration," someone made a list of them
Cornyn is on it, not Cruz. Plus several on the House side from Texas

 

[Joe Fan]

The lead held. He beat her 58-42. Apparently multiple presidential candidate weighed in on the race, and Beta made flipping it a big priority after his campaign fizzled out. ....

Speaking of Beto, a short piece today about how far the Dem Party has sunk from RFK to RFO

" ...... Nothing says more about the decline of the Democrats than the difference between the two Robert Francises — Robert F. Kennedy and Beto O’Rourke. They stand at the opposite ends of the sixty-year chasm between them. Beto was laid back and ephemeral; Bobby was intense. Bobby's swimming coach at Harvard called him “heavy in the water” — drownable, dense. Beto, by contrast, seemed light as a feather, as if even a strong breeze could blow him away.

Beto was a dilettante who wafted his way through various interests; Bobby was knee-deep in vital concerns: crime and punishment; civil rights and segregation; aggressive communism vs. the West. It's quite a shock to realize that Beto today is four years older than Bobby was when he was murdered. Beto today looks like a young person, whereas Bobby looked like an old man.

In his last campaign, when he drew the hysterical crowds some people today thought Beto’s resembled, people who covered Bobby were stunned by his looks. "The brown-blond hair was turning gray, and the once-boyish face was deeply lined," wrote Evan Thomas. Columnist Joe Kraft had “never seen him look so bad, so tired; his blue eyes were standing out really like a death’s head from his skull."

Nobody needs a president to look quite that bad, but the unlined vacuity of some of these candidates seems at least as disturbing: a candidate needs a few lines on his visage or at least traces of thought. The lowering of the experience bar shows disrespect for the office and arrogance on the part of some of the candidates. Anyone bright enough to one day become president surely should understand that."​

The decline of the primaries. From RFK to Beto

 

[Mr. Deez]

The NRSC and GOP are flipping out over Doug Collins' announcement for Senate.

Loeffler was Governor Kemp's hand-picked Senator to replace Isakson who just retired. Other than the female part, Loeffler is a typical old school Rep pick, a big money donor to the Rs. Kemp personally went to DC to try and convince Trump about her. But Trump preferred Collins.

Loeffler is wealthy and had donated a lot to campaigns, including at least one Democrat. She also had the bad sense to donate to Mitt Romney for Senate. Worse is that she is weak on immigration and abortion. This is part of why Kemp thought she would pull in the suburban Atlanta female vote. But my guess is that Collins will crush her since he is so closely tied to Trump (although Loeffler is much hotter than Collins). This matter shows there is still a huge gap between Senate Rs and Trump & his voting base.

Because what we need most in a swing state is a primary fight and a divided party.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Speaking of Beto, a short piece today about how far the Dem Party has sunk from RFK to RFO

" ...... Nothing says more about the decline of the Democrats than the difference between the two Robert Francises — Robert F. Kennedy and Beto O’Rourke. They stand at the opposite ends of the sixty-year chasm between them. Beto was laid back and ephemeral; Bobby was intense. Bobby's swimming coach at Harvard called him “heavy in the water” — drownable, dense. Beto, by contrast, seemed light as a feather, as if even a strong breeze could blow him away.

Beto was a dilettante who wafted his way through various interests; Bobby was knee-deep in vital concerns: crime and punishment; civil rights and segregation; aggressive communism vs. the West. It's quite a shock to realize that Beto today is four years older than Bobby was when he was murdered. Beto today looks like a young person, whereas Bobby looked like an old man.

In his last campaign, when he drew the hysterical crowds some people today thought Beto’s resembled, people who covered Bobby were stunned by his looks. "The brown-blond hair was turning gray, and the once-boyish face was deeply lined," wrote Evan Thomas. Columnist Joe Kraft had “never seen him look so bad, so tired; his blue eyes were standing out really like a death’s head from his skull."

Nobody needs a president to look quite that bad, but the unlined vacuity of some of these candidates seems at least as disturbing: a candidate needs a few lines on his visage or at least traces of thought. The lowering of the experience bar shows disrespect for the office and arrogance on the part of some of the candidates. Anyone bright enough to one day become president surely should understand that."​

The decline of the primaries. From RFK to Beto

I've decided to refer to him as BobFrank from here on out.

 

[Joe Fan]

Because what we need most in a swing state is a primary fight and a divided party.

I suppose 'need' can be subjective but I would argue what the Senate needs is a lot more like Collins and a lot less like Loeffler, who is just another establishment-Republican, swamp-dweller. If you want things to change in DC or even just get marginally better, then it's an easy call.

 

[Joe Fan]

I am going to go a bit further with this same piece from the NYT^ because this one part really bugs me
Trump Fans or Not, Business Owners Are Wary of Warren and Sanders

He doesn’t approve of tariffs, which have disrupted his supply chains and raised costs. He is turned off by the president’s disparagement of immigrants. And while small businesses routinely thank the administration for hacking through a regulatory thicket, he said of the pre-Trump rule book, “I can’t think of one time that it affected me or slowed growth.”​

The guy who said this does not see the big picture with what is going on with supply chains. Or "OEMs" as may be more accurate. But these have been leaving the US and all of North America for that matter for the last two decades. And once they are gone, that is it, they are gone forever.
This was one of Trump's primary aims with tariffs and a new trade deal with China. To not just slow or stop the loss of OEMs to Asia, but to reverse it. It has been a part of Trump's plan from the escalator. It was a part of his written and published economic plan. It's not something that gets much or any attention and it is not something either Obama or Hillary ever understood. But it is absolutely crucial to manufacturing in the US. And it is working as of this moment in time.

I wrote about OEMs/supply chains moving to Asia in this post above. About how Trump understood what was happening and was acting to stop it. Didnt get much response.
But can you guess where the OEMs/supply chain for medical supplies is now?
China
Think about that situation in light of the coronavirus
Who did this?
The Globalists/Party of Davos
We need to reverse this and it cannot happen soon enough

 

[4th_floor]

No Democratic figure had gotten more involved in the runoff than O'Rourke, who spent back-to-back weekends stumping in the district. After appearing at Markowitz's Election Night party, O'Rourke sought to buck up his followers during a Facebook Live broadcast while driving out of Houston.
The runoff "may not have turned out exactly the way we wanted [it] to, but I think what we did in preparation for this — the voter registration, the knocking on doors, the building the volunteer base, educating voters — all this is gonna continue to pay forward through November," O'Rourke said. "And so keep your eyes on the prize."

So the runoff may not have turned out exactly the way they wanted? What part of 58% to 42% turned out the way they wanted? Does Beto understand that if voter registrations have to go up to achieve 42% in an oddly timed election, he has barely started the steep climb to get 50% in the general election. But math, or truth, has never been Beto's strong suit.

 

[Joe Fan]

I guess the residency requirements are pretty lax but anyway Laura Ingraham is seriously toying with the idea of primarying Romney in Utah in 2024

 

[Mr. Deez]

I guess the residency requirements are pretty lax but anyway Laura Ingraham is seriously toying with the idea of primarying Romney in Utah in 2024

It's a stupid idea. She's not a Mormon and has no connections to the state. If they really want to take him out, they'll have to find another Mike Lee.

 

[nashhorn]

I think it’s just a joke.

 

[Joe Fan]

I think it’s just a joke.

She has considered running in the past - for something, I cant rmbr what

 

[Joe Fan]

It's a stupid idea. She's not a Mormon and has no connections to the state. If they really want to take him out, they'll have to find another Mike Lee.

I think she is an observant Catholic

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[theiioftx]

The Bee is on fire today. Several great posts.

 

[Monahorns]

The Bee should be ashamed of their anti-South statements. Don't they know their market?

 

[Joe Fan]

The Bee should be ashamed of their anti-South statements. Don't they know their market?

I thought they should have gone with Arkansas