Sovereignty ... or Not!

FrontPage Mag: THE MIGRANT CARAVAN INVASION

In typical leftist fashion, the leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are using these people's *lives* as fodder for their political agendas of:
1) destroying the Trump Administration in the short-term; and,
2) destroying the USA in the longer-term. As they imagine it, they win no matter what happens.

There are really only two possible responses to this invasion, with three possible outcomes, the first two of which are "wins" for the leftists; the leftists and Democrats have convinced themselves that the third possible outcome cannot happen --

1) The Administration huffs and puffs, and the "migrants" call their bluff, and because it was nothing but huffing and puffing, the Administration does nothing to protect and enforce the sovereignty of the USA; the "migrants" continue their invasion.

The upshot of this is that *as a practical matter* the USA ceases to exist as a sovereign state -- a "win" for the leftists -- and, baring a successful War of Independence 2.0 by the American people themselves, we are swamped by further foreign invasion, until we no longer exist as a people.

2) The Administration is serious about protecting and enforcing the sovereignty of the USA, and so uses lethal force to stop this invasion -- killing as many of the invaders as necessary, irrespective of sex or age; the leftists and Democrats cry crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed.

2a) If this is what happens, the Democrats believe that can parley those deaths into mass domestic outrage at the "crime" of killing "defenseless" invaders, and thus bring down the Trump Administration. If they are successful, this also spells the end of the USA, just slower that in scenario 1).

--- The (sub) scenario which the leftists and Democrats believe will not happen is this:

2b) The leftists and Democrats cry their crocodile tears over the deaths of people they *intentionally* set up to be killed ... and, rather than stirring outrage at our own government, the American People reply: "Go to Hell, Commies!" If this (sub) scenario plays out, America may yet survive.

That Guy, Over There!

When you think about it, the Democrats have *always* been the party of "If you vote to give me control of the government, I'll use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to you", on the one hand, and "If you promise to use governmental force-and-violence to take the wealth of that guy over there and give it to me, I'll vote to give you control of the government", on the other.

The mordantly amusing thing about Democrat voters is that they *never* figure out that *they* are some other Democrat voter's "that guy over there".

The Senate ... and The Constitution!

O.M.G. ... the US Constitution *forbids* an Amendment to create "proportional representation" in the Senate.

One may recall that the one of the drums the leftists are pounding is about how "unfair" and "undemocratic" it is that North Dakota has equal weight in the Senate with California and New York; and that they seem to imagine that they can "fix" this "problem" by decree. To which many on the right have responded to the effect that, "No, you can't do it by decree ... but you're welcome to try to amend the Constitution to get the result you desire."

Well, it turns out that the US Constitution forbids such an amendment --

ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Again: "The Congress ... [may] propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... Provided ...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

So, it wouldn't be enough that California and New York might agree to deprive North Dakota of its equal vote in the Senate; North Dakota would have to explicitly agree to deprive itself of this fundamental equality as a Sovereign State of the Union.

h/t Francis W. Porretto at Liberty's Torch

The presence of that clause in Article V, the Amendment Article, excludes the equal representation of the [S]tates in the Senate from the possibility of amendment. This is beyond dispute. The Senate, in other words, was created to guarantee that each [S]tate would have a voice in the Senate equal to any other [S]tate. The electoral system for choosing a president reinforces this oft-neglected aspect of the Constitution: it was intended to protect the small [S]tates from abuses perpetrated by the large ones.

The phrase “checks and balances” should come to mind at this point. My Gentle Readers have no doubt been muttering that phrase for some time already. Lesser intellects might consider suing their civics teachers.

The Framers knew full well what they were doing. The very last passage of the Constitution emphasizes the importance of the [S]tates as elements in the Constitutional design:

ARTICLE VII: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Constitution was conceived and ratified as a compact among the [S]tates. The [S]tates retained nearly complete internal sovereignty. Their equal representation in the Senate was intended, in part, to preserve that sovereignty, the exclusions in Article I, Section 10 being the sole exceptions. This aspect of the Constitution’s design is sometimes cited as an argument for a [S]tate’s power to nullify federal laws on the grounds of federal overreach.

The federal government has done many unConstitutional and extra-Constitutional things since the Wilson Administration. Some of them have been undeniable encroachments on [S]tate sovereignty. (Where, for example, is Congress given the power to legislate a federal penal code? But that’s a subject for another day.) This latest talk - of amending a part of the Constitution explicitly protected against amendment! - merely indicates how far Americans’ knowledge of the deliberately designed-in features of our Union has slipped.

ps: Repeal the 17th Amendment!

#MeToo and the so-called "complexity" of women

Letters to Hannah: #MeToo and the so-called "complexity" of women

When a woman is "complex" it's because she can't [i.e. "won't"] make a decision. She allows her mind to be clouded with alternate proposals, unsolved problems and the-best-of-both-worlds dreaming; and, incapable of resolving herself to the best real-world possibility, consigns herself to a world of constant frustration -- a state of irrational paralysis which they then call "complexity." ("Does this dress make me look fat?") The man weighs all and picks some. A crazy woman weighs all, gets some, and then wonders why she can't have the rest. She's complex because she hasn't thought it all out. The options she whines about are the ones she forgot [i.e. "refused"] to cross off [as being incompatible with the choice she did make].

This theory, I think, is the best explanation for feminism. That women want to look competitive -- but need quotas to compete with men. That they want to have careers -- and also raise children. That they want to flaunt their sexuality -- but can't handle objectification. That they want to look strong -- but need special defense against rape. That they all want to be sexy -- but can't handle standards on sexiness. That they can't make decisions when drinking -- but should still be allowed to buy drinks. That they need paid maternal leave -- but that everyone should consider them equally efficient. That a woman is trustworthy -- but that contracts and judges and juries are necessary to protect women from the mendacity of women. Each pair of interests proving, on some level, that no matter how many times you tell a child you can't have your cake and eat it too, some of them are too stupid to believe it.

Of course, women are irrational as described above because *men* act as "enablers" for their irrationality. It's not that women are innately more irrational than men; it's that until their irrationality gets to epic proportions, such as, I don't know, murdering their own children, there is always some damned man running interference, making excuses, blaming other men, and so on. And, of course, these days, not even murdering their own children is epic enough irrationality that there won't be some God-damned man making excuses, and blaming other men for her sin and crime ... when, in fact, is is he and his ilk who have taught her that there are never to be any consequences to anything that she does.