The current resistance of the Texas authorities to illegal acts of the rulers of the U.S. government is important and heartening for two reasons.
First, it reflects the real “Constitution for the United States,” which has long been in disuse. In the real Constitution the States have the right to interpose between their people and the government’s unconstitutional acts. Abuse of power and violation of the law by federal rulers is by definition tyranny---an affront to government “of, by, and for the people.”
Secondly, Texas has raised the principle of the right and responsibility of “the lesser magistrates,” to oppose the tyranny of higher authorities. Any just regime has magistrates to enforce the true laws, to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. When the situation arises these officials in their lawful capacity can rightfully counter the illegalities of the “higher” authorities. (I thank Reckonin' commenter Roscoe for reminding me of this.) This idea was a deep aspect of the American case in the War of Independence.
Unfortunately we have a multitude of examples of lesser magistrates violating their duty to distinguish right and wrong. Take the notorious case in Minnesota. The governor, mayor, attorney general, prosecutors, and judges all took the side of the lawbreaker and condemned the law enforcer. The lawbreaker got universal praise, a gold casket, and a monument. The law enforcer got massive slander and prison. But, after all, the policeman was considered sacrificable as one the “delporables,” ordinary white people disdained by our sophisticated rulers.
Long ago, during my misspent youth as a newspaper reporter, I saw a revealing incident. There was a minor conflict at a local restaurant. The newspaper’s most popular columnist inflated this into a crime wave in the better part of town. The mayor immediately announced his alarm and opposition to this development, without any assessment of the facts. He was simply, like all politicians, immediately doing what he thought would be popular. No consideration of truth or falsehood, good or evil, ever entered his head.
This exactly describes Joe Biden’s reaction to any reported incident possibly to be considered as offensive to black people and all good citizens. It was an occasion for virtue signaling that would be praised by the media. Why else do so many of our politicians of both parties warmly embrace the genocide going on in the Mideast?
The fact is they are shallow and ignorant men and women who have no real interest other than self-promotion (vanity and greed). The stand of Biden, other authorities, and the media convinced the world that a police reign of terror against black people was a fact of American life. An honest and patriotic President would have told the world that such was not the case, that in fact blacks were 18 times more likely to kill policemen than the other way around.
We have no politics, no rational debate or discussion of ideas and policies at the mainstream level---only advertising. That is that state of our “democracy” today. We can only be hopeful about the current acts of the Southern “lesser magistrates.” And hopeful that a future Judgment will expose the real minds of our politicians and provide an appropriate punishment.
Vladmir Putin is greatly superior to Joe Biden in every observable way. Putin has more intelligence, more integrity, more honesty, more courage, more far-sighted understanding. He is more Christian, more patriotic, and works to strengthen his country, while Biden is destroying his. Putin is an historical figure, while Biden is merely a loser, like the last king of France and the last Csar of Russia - weak, ignorant rulers who brought disaster to their people. Putin is articulate and knows some real history, ahead of Biden on both counts.
During the War of 1812, the wise statesman John C. Calhoun considered what was the duty of a citizen during war time. Of course, he must support his people, but if he thought the country and its leaders were wrong, to what extent was it a citizen’s right to say so? Of course, the war that Calhoun was discussing was a Constitutionally declared war. There were genuine but patriotic differences of opinion about what action was good for the country.
But what is our patriotic obligation to support the U.S. present military actions operating around the world? These actions are not Constitutional, their benefit to the country has never really been discussed. We sympathise when our fellow citizens who are in harm’s way are killed or wounded in remote places where they should never have been at all - sacrificed by muddled and irresponsible rulers.
I note recently deaths and injuries to our men at some place, an apparently vulnerable place. Note also, those hurt were not regular army people but Georgia National Guardsmen who doubtless never imagined that their service would lead to such sacrifice. The bureaucrats claiming to be soldiers always lean on the South they hate.
Our chair-warrior leaders are eager to say that in defending all these far away bases we are somehow defending America. This is a lie. Our retaliation is in no manner defending our American land and people. Further, these people respond to the attack of a few “terrorists” with massive bombing of entire civil populations that are assumed to harbour such terrorists. This is a grave sin that will create blowback, if God is just.
Clyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina He is the author or editor of over thirty books and published over 600 articles, essays and reviews