On Friday, 26 January, Slate magazine ran a piece entitled “GOP Governors Invoke the Confederate Theory of Secession to Justify Border Violations.” Slate has an interesting definition of “border violations.” A sensible, normal person would think that meant crossing the border illegally. Slate uses the phrase to refer to Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who has taken steps to guard his State’s border and turn back the torrential flood of foreign migrants pouring over the Rio Grande.
The Slate article’s author, Mark Joseph Stern, clearly doesn’t know his history. Oh, he is quick to cite Abraham Lincoln’s opposition to the Compact Theory, and throws in Daniel Webster for good measure. Stern also mentions the Nullification Crisis of 1833, when eeeeevil South Carolina had the temerity to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. He also incorrectly characterizes the Confederate South as “totalitarian.” This would have been news to the totalitarian Adolf Hitler, who espoused the centralization of Abraham Lincoln, not the federalism of Jefferson Davis, in Mein Kampf. Stern also conveniently ignores the history of the Constitution’s origins – specifically its writing and ratification. The Compact Theory (or, rather Compact Fact) was not invented by the Confederates. It was the true nature of the Union, understood by the vast majority of the Founding Generation, North and South. Thomas Jefferson and John Taylor of Caroline elucidated it best, but they were not alone. Roger Sherman and John Dickinson, among a multitude of others, knew and spoke and wrote the truth. Even men who were actually nationalists in their inclination had to argue that the Constitution was a federal compact in order to get the States to ratify it - James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton spring immediately to mind (see Wilson's Statehouse Yard speech and Hamilton's remarks to the New York ratification convention). How often do the authors of The Federalist, even Hamilton and John Jay, repeat that the Constitution establishes a federal compact? Good grief, the Constitution itself recognizes this by referring to "the United States" in the plural throughout - e.g., Article Three, Section 3: "treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (emphasis mine)
All Slate has done (albeit inadvertently) is illustrate a great historical truth: Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln were liars who created a nationalist myth and interpretation of the Constitution which is entirely false and totally contrary to the spirit of 1776. The Confederates, rather than manufacturing a false theory of Constitutional interpretation, were the ones defending the truth of history, the Constitution as ratified, and whatever remnant of Christendom yet remained extant on the face of the earth. Western Civilization died at Appomattox. We are merely living through the death throes. (Though one might argue the suicide of the West began in 1789 with the French Revolution and concluded with either of the World Wars). Of course, in doing this, Slate has exposed the elephant in the room – Abraham Lincoln established an empire on the ruins of the old federal republic and it is now his party appealing to a truth he himself rejected. The irony of the GOP appealing to Jefferson’s truth rather than Lincoln’s lie should not be lost on any of us, but let us take it as a positive sign. Perhaps this represents a sea change. Perhaps more Americans are beginning to rediscover the truth of what Jefferson called “our confederated fabric.” Perhaps necessity will spur a rejection of Caesar and a return to Cincinnatus.
There is no constitutional crisis here. The original thirteen States created the Union for the common trade and defense. Texas joined the Union for the sake of common trade and defense. If the government of the Union fails to provide for the common defense, the States absolutely have the right and the duty to protect themselves. Case closed.
Moreover, in actively refusing to enforce a constitutional law, Joe Biden has violated his oath of office. So have the five Supreme Court justices who ruled in his favour. They should be impeached and removed from office. But that is not all. The Union is being invaded at the southern border. These migrant crossings are being spurred on and taken advantage of by drug lords and terrorist organizations like Hamas. The federal government has abdicated its responsibilities. Texas has the right to step into the breach. The fact that the federal government is actively attempting to thwart Texas in her acts of self-defense only makes the betrayal ten times worse. This is not mere dereliction of duty. It is the aiding and abetting of a foreign invasion - the Biden Administration and the Supreme Court majority have committed treason. The Union established under the Constitution is a pact for common defense and trade, not a suicide pact.
God bless Texas, and God bless the governors with enough spine to support her. The Lone Star State must nullify the Supreme Court's ruling and continue to defend the border. Any federal agent who tries to interfere should be arrested and charged with treason under Article Three, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
The State of Tennessee recently passed a law entitled The Adult Entertainment Act, which has commonly been referred to as “the drag show ban.”1 The law prohibited “topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest” from performing on public property or in places where children could see such performances. On 2 June 2023, Federal District Court Judge Thomas Parker (a Trump appointee) declared the A.E.A. unconstitutional because it violated the 1st Amendment’s free speech protections as incorporated to the States through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.2 To anyone old enough to remember the Year of Our Lord 2020, the irony is richer than red velvet cake. Three years ago, we were told that the States could do anything they pleased – enact mask and vaccine mandates, lock people in their homes for weeks or months on end, close down businesses, schools, and churches – without in any way violating the rights and liberties of the people so long as they did so in the name of protecting against COVID-19. Now, when a State acts to protect children from indecent exposure, that somehow violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free political speech and assembly. The absurdity, tyranny, and abject wickedness of this ruling are so blatantly obvious that writing them out seems insulting to the reader. Anyone who thinks that the Supreme Court will fix this needs to remember that it was Trump-appointee Neil Gorsuch who penned a ruling (Bostock v. Clayton County, GA) declaring that trans women (biological men) have the same rights and protections as women under Title VII (and, by logical implication, Title IX). The Federal court system is not the tool with which to protect our civilization or reclaim our rights and liberties. The answer, now as in the past, is the nullification of all unconstitutional usurpations of power from the States and the people.
This has been explained in detail and at significant length elsewhere, but it is appropriate to summarize the following points here as a reminder. First, this ruling is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court (and lower Federal courts) have no Constitutional authority to hear cases appealed from State courts, nor do they possess any authority to overturn State laws. This supposed authority comes from Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which is itself unconstitutional because Congress has no authority to expand or decrease the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Its jurisdiction is defined in Article III, and the lower Federal courts cannot possibly have a greater jurisdiction than the Supreme Court does. When quizzed by Patrick Henry at the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788, John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court had no Constitutional power to overturn State laws. Second, the Federal Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to the States, just to the Federal government. After all, the States have their own bills of rights in their State constitutions. This means that the Incorporation Doctrine has no basis, either in the Constitution, the preamble to the Bill of Rights, or in any other document authored by the Founding Fathers. Third, the historical evidence indicates that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified by the States, meaning that it isn’t even part of the U.S. Constitution (see A Constitutional History of the United States by Forrest McDonald). Fourth and finally, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees “every state in this union a republican form of government.” What kind of a republic do you have if the laws enacted by your elected representatives can be overturned by some outside tribunal? Is the Federal court system a republican form of government for every State? If so, why go to the trouble of electing and paying State legislators, governors, and judges?
Federal judges don’t write the laws of Tennessee – we the people do. Our legislature passed the A.E.A. and our governor signed it into law because we the people demanded that they do so. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared that the just powers of governments come from the “consent of the governed.” It is time that we the people of Tennessee make it unequivocally clear that we do not consent. We do not consent to perverts of any persuasion grooming our children. We do not consent to public displays of lewd or promiscuous sexual behaviour. And we do not consent to a Federal judge unconstitutionally overturning our legitimately enacted laws and statutes. Every citizen of this State should contact the governor, the State attorney general, county sheriffs and district attorneys, and city mayors and police chiefs to request and demand that they enforce the Adult Entertainment Act as if the Federal court ruling had never occurred – because, Constitutionally speaking, the Federal ruling never did occur.