Yesterday, five justices of the Supreme Court (the obvious ones, plus Barrett and Roberts) decided to lift an injunction against the Biden administration’s attempt to force open the portions of the national border in Texas that Texas had unilaterally decided to seal off with razor wire and other barriers.
Think about that; the administration appealed to the high Court to prevent Texas from securing the border — a thing that, if the government in Washington has any obligations to the nation at all, should be paramount: to defend the nation against invasion. And five of the justices agreed.
Preventing invasion being a thing that absolutely must be done, the government of Texas, seeing that Washington has abrogated its most essential responsibility, has taken it upon itself to stymie the invaders. Now it faces a terrible choice: abandon that sacred duty, or defy both the Supreme Court and the Biden administration. So far, Texas refuses to allow Federal agents to destroy the barrier: it chooses duty over obedience. I reluctantly, but wholeheartedly, support them in this.
Why “reluctantly”? Because when the cables that hold a constitutional republic together begin to snap, then chaos, disintegration, and very often war, are never far behind. Already many American cities had decided to annul, by refusing to enforce, our immigration laws, and more recently president Biden has decided to push ahead with student-loan “forgiveness”, despite having been admonished by the Court that he had no authority to do so. Now Texas is defying the Court as well.
The so-called “rule of law”, and obedience to the formal structures of government, are all that stand, in a vast and divided nation, between order and chaos; they are the load-bearing walls that support the great (and trembling) edifice of American civilization. Every crack in them weakens its structural soundness, and puts more strain on other parts of its frame and foundation; and as the little fractures multiply, they lead to bigger and bigger ones, until the whole thing comes crashing down. (I’m not making this up, mind: this is, over and over again, how nations die.)
Why “wholeheartedly”? Because when a ship is holed below the waterline, the crew have to close the watertight compartments and man the pumps, regardless of whether the captain gives the order or not, is too drunk or otherwise incapacitated to do what’s needed, or even if he is bent on sabotage. It’s better to face a court-martial than to drown — and after all, there are the passengers to think of as well.
As Andrew Jackson once said, speaking of the Chief Justice: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!” This time around, it’s Greg Abbott and John Roberts. What will happen in the coming days? Who will blink? We’ll see.
3 Comments
Institutional credibility is in free fall. Will this be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and plunge us into existential crisis? I expect not. That seems to be programmed for later this year.
Your use of “nation” is hard to comprehend for a European. Outside of the US, a nation is usually understood as a people having common ancestors as well as a common language, culture, and religion.
From my perspective, the US is lacking all that. Hence, there are several nations inside the territory of the US rather than just one. The word “empire” is therefore a better fit than “nation”.
So far empires have not nearly been as durable as nations. What you describe is how empires die. Nations are not held together by rule of law. Empires are held together by rule of law or — as you might find out soon — by brute force.
Max, you are right. There’s a reason I wrote what I did, but it deserves a new post of its own. Check back here shortly.