Russ Vought is a Trump loyalist who believes we live in a “post-Constitutional” nation:““We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted: “Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.”‘Post-Constitutional’ sounds suspiciously similar to the post-Tsarist vision of the Bolsheviks in 1917: forget the past, ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears, and let the ends justify the means. That didn’t end well for Russia, and I don’t think we should be turning to Lenin and Stalin for models of political change.WRT immigration and the Constitution,
Topics:
Joel Eissenberg considers the following as important: history, Hot Topics, immigration, Immigration law, law
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes Good news on production is overshadowed by the yellow caution flag of flagging real retail sales
Eric Kramer writes Are the conservative Justices playing politics?
NewDealdemocrat writes Immigration and the housing market freeze are making the “last mile” of disinflation harder, not the Phillips Curve
Joel Eissenberg writes The myth of lead and the Roman Empire
Russ Vought is a Trump loyalist who believes we live in a “post-Constitutional” nation:
““We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted:
“Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.”
‘Post-Constitutional’ sounds suspiciously similar to the post-Tsarist vision of the Bolsheviks in 1917: forget the past, ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears, and let the ends justify the means. That didn’t end well for Russia, and I don’t think we should be turning to Lenin and Stalin for models of political change.
WRT immigration and the Constitution, the SCOTUS has held that the US government possesses all the powers incident to a sovereign, including unqualified authority over the Nation’s borders and the ability to determine whether foreign nationals may come within its territory. Vought, who is a JD but has no special expertise in Constitutional law, argues for a re-interpretation of Constitutional law to permit hijacking of US border control by the states. Kevin Drum over at jabberwocking.com has read Vought’s “seminal essay” so we don’t have to. Here’s what Vought concludes through his process of historical telepathy:
“We have looked to the Constitution for what the Founders would do if one was a current governor of a border state, and lo and behold, we found Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, articulating that states cannot engage in war making unless invaded. And in our research, we found that they did not mean threats from foreign nation states, but rather smugglers, militias, Indian tribes, etc.”
Apparently, Vought’s “research” refers to the practice of using tortured reasoning and legalistic bafflegab to flog an argument from its pre-ordained conclusion backwards to the selective reading of evidence. As Drum succinctly observes:
“This is ridiculous. “Invasion,” both then and now, refers to an organized force attacking the country with violence and malice. Individuals acting independently with no intent to conquer or kill do not constitute an invasion under any plausible interpretation.”
Beware, my friends. Vought and his fellow travelers do not respect the rule of law and will say and do whatever is necessary to achieve power and control.