Hoo boy, this week’s Three Whisky Happy Hour very nearly descended into a full-scale bar room brawl, even though we recorded in the morning over coffee instead of single-malts because John Yoo is still over in Rome! (And may not come back after this episode!)
After noting a few late breaking news stories, such as Harvey Mansfield’s retirement and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s surprise announcement that she’s becoming an independent, we get down to the main event: Steve and Lucretia decided to contest John’s recent National Review article that argues the states (such as Texas) have no power under the U.S. Constitution to prevent illegal immigration at the southern border. (See also Ed Erler’s spirited attack on John here.)
Can the current surge of illegal border crossers be considered an “invasion” for constitutional purposes? And what has been the history of states actively managing immigration throughout U.S. history? Ultimately, however, our argument ascends (or descends?) into the wider issue of whether the Constitution can or should be understood primarily as a legal document, or as a political document. It’s a familiar argument for regular listeners of this podcast, but the immigration controversy offers yet another portal into the issue.
Needless to say, perhaps, the exit music this week is . . . “Immigration Man.”
You know what to do now: listen here, or cross the border into the sovereign territory of our hosts at Ricochet.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.