<This week, Republican governors across the country escalated their conflict with the Biden administration over the southern border by invoking the same legal theory that slave states wielded to justify secession before the Civil War. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, joined by 25 other GOP governors, now argues that the Biden administration has violated the federal government’s “compact” with the states—an abdication that justifies state usurpation of federal authority at the border. This language embraces the Confederacy’s conception of the Constitution as a mere compact that states may exit when they feel it has been broken. It’s dangerous rhetoric that transcends partisan grandstanding. And as before, it’s being used to legitimize both nullification and dehumanization.

Consider the very first line of a statement Abbott issued on Wednesday that was subsequently backed by the other Republicans, which states, “The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the states.” That language is strikingly similar to the very first line of the secession ordinances passed by slave states when they purported to leave the union. Most of these ordinances began with a declaration that the state sought “to dissolve the union” that was “united under the compact” known as the Constitution. It was this “compact”—not national sovereignty, but a contract among states and the federal government—that constituted the United States of America. The secession ordinances asserted that the federal government, and the president especially, owed certain constitutional duties to the states under this contract. It had allegedly abdicated those duties by threatening to restrict slavery and disrespecting the rights of Southern states in other ways inextricably linked to the maintenance of white supremacy. Any state, these ordinances concluded, was therefore entitled to depart the union and become “free and independent” once more.

President Abraham Lincoln was staunchly opposed this so-called compact theory. As he explained in his first inaugural address, “The Union of these States is perpetual” under the Constitution. The United States do not form a compact, but are a “country” bound together by “national fabric.” This argument provided the entire justification for the war in its early years, which Lincoln initially framed as a battle against secession, not slavery. (“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,” he wrote in 1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.”) The union that Lincoln hoped to save was an agreement between the sovereign people of the United States, not the states themselves. And so, the president argued, the people of a particular state could not break away of their own volition.

Here, Lincoln drew on an impressive historical pedigree: Sen. Daniel Webster’s rejection of the compact theory during the nullification crisis of 1833. That crisis, too, has uncanny parallels with Abbott’s misunderstanding of federal supremacy today: South Carolina insisted on its right to nullify a tariff enacted by Congress, much like the Texas governor seeks a right to nullify statutes that give Border Patrol authority over the southern border. “No State authority,” Webster proclaimed, “can dissolve the relations subsisting between the government of the United States and individuals.” That relationship was secured by the Constitution, and the states have no prerogative to undermine it, even in the name of supposed injustice or emergency.

Webster’s theory prevailed in 1833, and Lincoln’s carried the day in 1865 with the surrender of the Confederacy. Now, however, Abbott appears to disagree with both men. His letter faulted Biden for his “illegal refusal to protect the states” from migrants, failing to “perform his constitutional duties” by detaining every unauthorized migrant. By doing so, Biden purportedly broke the “compact” between the federal government and the states, freeing Texas to supplant federal authority at the border. Or, in Abbott’s words, to exercise its “constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.” (The statement by 25 other GOP governors says almost exactly the same thing.)....>

<....For further support, these governors invoked the Constitution’s invasion clause. But this is, at best, a distraction. The invasion clause clarifies that states may not “engage in war” without Congress’ consent “unless actually invaded.” It was intended to let states defend themselves against foreign armies—hence the word war—until the federal government had a chance to respond. James Madison himself said that immigration does not constitute an “invasion,” as the term implied the “operation of war.” No matter how bellicose their rhetoric, Republican governors cannot seriously argue that they are at war with migrants under any constitutional definition of the term. The invasion clause simply does not give states license to usurp federal policy or interfere with federal law enforcement.

So the “invasion” language, which Donald Trump repeated on Thursday, is probably best understood as window dressing for the primary legal theory underpinning Republican governors’ claims: that the United States constitutes a compact, and Biden’s violation of this compact triggers a state’s right to supplant federal authority, by force when necessary. It’s difficult to believe that the similarities between this theory and those of the Confederacy are mere coincidence. Either way, the resemblance speaks volumes about Abbott’s dangerous undertaking at the border. The governor vocally despises migrants, almost all of them nonwhite, who are seeking asylum in the United States. At every turn, he depicts them as less than human, violent criminals exploiting the country’s generosity to destroy it from within.

What does it look like when secessionist theory is weaponized against a 21st-century president? We have already begun to find out. For months, the Texas National Guard was engaged in an armed standoff with federal law enforcement, as well as active duty service members, at the Rio Grande: Guardsmen used razor wire to fence off the border, preventing federal access to migrants, even those in severe medical distress. On Monday, by a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction that prevented federal officers from cutting through this razor wire. But Abbott says his state will “defend and protect itself” by continued use of force, raising the very real possibility of ongoing clashes between state and federal law enforcement. Whether these disputes turn violent is anyone’s guess. The belligerent governor, though, has conspicuously declined to rule out use of force against anyone who stands in his way.

Vicious nativism is certainly not a perfect comparison to the totalitarian white supremacy that drove the slave states to Civil War, but it, too, springs from the diseased roots of bigotry, fear, and rage. It should be no surprise, then, that Abbott and his allies would adopt Confederate rhetoric in his quest to seize control over the border and subject migrants to anguish and death. By embracing the Confederate theory of the nation as a mere compact, he has freed himself to take even more aggressive measures against the federal government. We have been here before. It does not end well.>

And no, <antichrist>, 'fin' does not mean a fiver in this usage, so don't wet your knickers as you hurry to drop a dime in an otiose, revanchist rage.

<The Arizona Republican Party has experienced a turbulent few days, with its chairman quitting and a planned conference set to feature Donald Trump canceled.

On Wednesday, Arizona GOP (AZGOP) chair Jeff DeWit resigned over a leaked recording that appeared to reveal him offering a bribe to Republican Kari Lake not to compete for the state's Senate seat in November, adding there are "very powerful people" who don't want her to run who are "willing to put their money where their mouth is."

Lake is staunch Trump supporter and election denier who has falsely claimed her 2022 gubernatorial race defeat to Katie Hobbs was due to widespread voting irregularities. Lake is now running for the Arizona Senate seat currently held by Independent Krysten Sinema. DeWit's resignation arrived just before Trump was due to headline the Arizona GOP's "Freedom Fest" on January 26, which was seen as a vital fundraising event and a way to push the party in the right direction in his election year.

Trump has since confirmed he will not be attending the event, as he will be in New York to hear closing arguments in his civil defamation trial. Trump gave a brief testimony on Thursday, but was severely restricted about what he was allowed to say in front of the jury in the proceedings involving his sexual assault accuser, E. Jean Carroll.

"President Trump will be in NYC for court Friday and unable to make the event, but will be back to Arizona as soon as possible," senior Trump spokesperson Jason Miller told The Arizona Republic. "We look forward to winning Arizona for President Trump, electing Kari Lake and working with the AZGOP to do it."

The AZGOP later confirmed that the entire Freedom Fest event has been canceled after Trump confirmed he is not attending.

"We stand with him during this time and eagerly anticipate welcoming him back to Arizona in the near future," the party posted on social media.

The AZGOP has been contacted for further comment via email.

The audio that led to DeWit's resignation showed DeWit asking Lake "is there a number" she would accept which might stop her running for the Arizona Senate seat.

"This is not about money, it's about our country,' Lake replied.

In his resignation letter, DeWit accused Lake of releasing a "selectively edited audio recording" of a private conversation from more than 10 months ago.

"The ethical breach in her recording of our conversation, while Lake was my employee, raises serious legal and moral concerns. This act of recording was not just a betrayal of trust but also a violation of the fiduciary responsibilities of an employee. Contrary to accusations of bribery, my discussions were transparent and intended to offer perspective, not coercion," DeWit said.

DeWit also accused Lake of being on a "mission to destroy" him since the conversation was recorded.

"I said things I regret, but I realize when hearing Lake's recording that I was set up. I believe she orchestrated this entire situation to have control over the state party," DeWit added.

In a previous statement to Newsweek, Lake's campaign team said that the tape "speaks for itself" and that it is "unfortunate that DeWit hasn't recognized how unethical his behavior was."

"The Arizona GOP Chairman Jeff DeWit attempted to bribe Kari Lake. Thankfully Kari is an extremely ethical person who rejected DeWit's multiple attempts to offer her money and corporate board seats in exchange for Kari not running for public office. She will be an incredible Senator for Arizonans. No one from the Kari Lake campaign threatened or blackmailed DeWit," Lake's campaign said.>

<The Judicial System Is Failing Democracy

In retrospect, I came into the Trump era with way too much confidence that the legal system was up to the task. The last eight years have been humbling in that regard.

As a lawyer-turned-editor, I cautioned my reporting team not to be impatient with the pace and deliberation of legal processes. These things take time. Don’t be hot-headed about it. Chill out. Let things run their course.

The sometimes plodding pace of the system is by design, more a feature than a bug. There’s an entire vernacular around the downsides of too-swift justice: “rough justice,” “lynch mob,” “show trial,” “railroaded.” The list is long.

In the early days of the Trump presidency, efforts to obtain his tax returns or enforce the Emoluments Clause were slow, clumsy, and sometimes reluctantly undertaken by Democrats in Congress. I was inclined to excuse that slowness. But as the threat mounted and become more obvious and the reaction to it failed to rise to the challenge, my own sense of urgency began to change.

When the travesties of the Trump presidency accumulated and potential accountability shifted from the political to legal realms, especially after the Jan. 6 attack, I feared that the legal system was more inclined to sweep it all under the rug than confront it. A lot of our coverage was focused on framing the Jan. 6 attack as merely the culmination of a broad, months-long conspiracy to subvert the election. While the attack on the Capitol did historic damage and finally started to stir law enforcement into action, over-focusing on the physical attack would miss the myriad other ways the election had been subverted using the powers of the executive branch.

In the years since, it has become obvious that the slowness of the legal system isn’t merely the result of a careful, deliberative adherence to the rule of law and the procedural protections necessary to do proper justice. It is also a product of a wariness in confronting Trump and his legions of supporters, an unreasonable tendency to give him the benefit of the doubt, the judiciary’s own overweening sense that it is above politics, and a fundamental failure to appreciate that a strongman who attempted to seize power unlawfully once is a threat to the very existence of the legal system itself....>

<....When the legal system itself is under threat, it must respond with extraordinary measures that continue to protect the procedural and substantive rights of the individual defendant but girds the system against attack, prioritizes institutional self-preservation, and is self-conscious of its role as a bulwark of democracy.

Some individual jurists, like U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who only got the Trump Jan. 6 case last August, have performed admirably. The legal system as a whole has not. The former chief judge in DC warned last fall that we are “at a crossroads teetering on the brink of authoritarianism.” During the sentencing yesterday of Trump White House official Peter Navarro, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta called b***s*** on it being a “political prosecution.” Also yesterday, in the sentencing of a Jan. 6 rioter, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a long-serving Reagan appointee, let it rip:

The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong. But in my thirty-seven years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream. I have been dismayed to see distortions and outright falsehoods seep into the public consciousness. I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved “in an orderly fashion” like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted January 6 defendants as “political prisoners” or even, incredibly, “hostages.” That is all preposterous. But the Court fears that such destructive, misguided rhetoric could presage further danger to our country.

Six months ago, it looked like the first weeks of the new year would be dominated not by the GOP primary but by pretrial preparations for a whopping four criminal trials of Trump. The race was finally on to hold Trump to account for his cheating in the last two elections before he cheated in a third one. As we sit here at the end of January, the landscape is not what we anticipated.

The Mar-a-Lago case is almost guaranteed to happen after the election. So is the Georgia RICO case. The Jan. 6 case is stuck on pretrial appeals, with the DC Circuit and Supreme Court failing to push things along. The lesser of the four cases – the hush money case in New York – may be the only one tried before the election. Meanwhile, there’s a chance Trump will be brought down by the Disqualification Clause but no one is confident the courts will enforce that against him either.

I’ve gone from annoyed about the repeated complaints about the slowness of the system to sharing those sentiments myself to having my hair on fire that the gravity of the moment calls for so much more than the legal system is prepared to offer. In a way this a mea culpa for urging my staff over the last few years to chill out. Things have not been this urgent since the 1860s. And we’re failing.>

<When Sadiq Khan promised to clean up London’s air by introducing electric buses, did he factor in the black smoke which poured out of the Number 265 as it burst into flames in Putney on Wednesday?

That followed two very similar fires in the past fortnight which consumed vehicles from the same fleet. Paris has already had to withdraw a fleet of electric buses after a couple of fires, while in Venice-Mestre last October 21 people died after an electric bus caught fire and plunged off a flyover.

The “race to net zero”, as the politicians like to describe it, isn’t just expensive; it is dangerous. It isn’t only electric buses which burst into flames, of course – Ken Livingstone’s infamous bendy buses also had a habit of catching fire, and they were diesel-powered. But when electric vehicles catch fire they can be a lot harder to put out due to “thermal runaway” where one overheating cell leads to the neighbouring cell, setting off a chain reaction.

With buses, the problem is even bigger than in cars because the batteries are necessarily larger. The fires can’t be tackled in the same way as petrol or diesel vehicle fires, and vehicles are in some cases being left to burn themselves out.

I am sure these problems may eventually be overcome and electric vehicles become a lot safer than they are now, but it isn’t going to be easy or quick. A couple of years ago I took a speculative punt on a start-up company which seemed initially to have solved the problem of thermal runaway in vehicle batteries. You only have to look at my miserable, shrunken investment now to tell that the technology isn’t coming along quite as hoped. I have been a lot more wary of green technologies since then.

But the problem is that the demands of our 2050 net zero target don’t give anyone the time or space to sort out these sorts of problems properly. The zero emission vehicle mandate introduced by the government on 1 January demands that 22 percent of all cars sold in Britain this year are pure electric, rising to 80 percent by 2030. The plans for the green transition are more than a little half-baked (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say somewhat over-baked in the case of electric buses). Transport for London, like everyone else, is being forced to invest heavily in technologies today despite the point that they will likely improve vastly in the near future.

Khan has promised to make all buses in London zero emission by 2037. But how is he going to get there when it looks as if he may well have to withdraw an entire fleet of 380 buses? If he doesn’t take these buses out of service, I fear he may find himself short of passengers willing to take the risk. Khan is a great one for ramping up public fear when it comes to air pollution. A better definition of a crisis, I think, is a sudden and acute problem – like spontaneously-combusting buses.>

<[Event "Midwest Masters"] [Site "Chicago IL"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[EventDate "1989"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Brooks, Michael A"]
[Black "Lukowiak, William"]
[ECO "C65"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "Civilized Swiss #8"] [Site "Framingham Mass"]
[Date "1989.05.21"]
[EventDate "1989"]
[Round "1.2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Shaw, Alan"]
[Black "Secino, Robert"]
[ECO "D91"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "November Madness"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1983.11.12"]
[EventDate "1983"]
[Round "3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Yedidia, Jonathan"]
[Black "Shaw, Alan"]
[ECO "E12"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 c5 5.d5 Ba6 6.Qc2 exd5 7.cxd5 Bb7 8.e4 Qe7 9.Bd3 Nxd5 10.0-0 Nc7 11.Nc3 Nc6 12.Bg5 f6 13.Bh4 0-0-0 14.Bg3 d6 15.Rfd1 Ne5 16.Be2 g5 17.a4 h5 18.h3 Qg7 19.Nxe5 fxe5 20.a5 Ne6 21.Nb5 Nd4 22.Nxd4 exd4 23.axb6 axb6 24.Bc4 Qe7 25.e5 d5 26.Qf5+ Kc7 27.Bb5 Qh7 28.Qf6 Be7 29.e6+ Bd6 30.e7 1-0>

Bet y'all <love> how I am 'puffing up my legacy' with yet more 'tainted games'.

Yeah, his post about Carlsen not showing up to face Pragg at Tata Steel to protect his legacy is gone. That was a rich statement for such an "expert".

<His sidekick from Budapest will, by his own admission, evidently go on wholesale whistle-blowing expeditions in a revanchist sort of way.>

I actually welcome scrutiny of any post I make, at any time. If done properly (see below).

When <Daniel> was alive I never got suspended, not even once, though I got a handful of posts deleted when the old gang (you-know-who) was dog-packing.

Thank goodness that behavior finally got squashed by the admins (mostly when they banned <bippie v1.0>).

* * * * *

<Have you ever heard of the 1975 hit stateside called <Paloma Blanca>? On some game or other, I posted lyrics from the song and he took it into his head that it was off-topic, whinged to the powers that be and got his puerile way.>

Don't know the title - but I'll check youtube after this to give a quick listen to see if I recognize it.

As for the rest - it's unfortunate that the admins think it's fair on their part to wack both sides, without considering the context and content.

That's the case with my alias accounts too (promised three, got none).

What this "gotta be fair and wack both" approach does only emboldens the bad behavior on the part of the chronic offenders.

They can never bury the hatchet so long as they're always carrying an axe to grind.

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO6...

On other matters: it seems as though posts are either allowed to stand, or as you say, purged wholesale.

There was one player on whom I made a whimsical comment, which prompted a rejoinder by <the usual suspect>, featuring his typical passive-aggressive behaviour, interwoven with blatant aggro. His post was axed in due course, along with mine.

<Hey Messiah, good to know that perv is up to his normal self, full of hatred and anger and belittling all matters right of hiz power-grabbing, law-defying, socio-political anarchy.

perv'z a coward who Refusez to allow us to respond there with the truth -- we're blocked from correcting his false propaganda. It's more of the double standard of unfairness -- the CGs guidelines, including forum guidelines, don't apply to that cyberbully editor. Of course, the public is allowed to see perv's forum, unlike ftb's forum (which just began last year and is usually closed anyway, but CGs has unfairly restricted the account).

One might guess who the devil-paying perv is slagging as the <spawn of satan> today:

<perfidious: <junior pharisee> has come to carry water for his boy <spawn of satan>.

perfidious: <spawn of satan> coming it over with the Scriptures. It might be amusing if it were not thoroughly pernicious.

<fredthejackal>, you cheering him on? <antichrist>, how 'bout you? <ohiyuk>, ya getting a good word in there on the way?>

<perfidious: One is very nearly tempted to give actual credence to such a great expert on abuse and shame as <gina, heart attack giver>, inasmuch as his black, masochistic heart yearns for both. Ain't that so, <spawn of satan>?>

puffy never gets tired of rolling out his daily rolodex of rehashed insults. Orange face from outer space needs a new gig w/fresh material and makeup. There's no doubt Sunny AlS is the cause of global warming.

^ ^ ^

As expected, there's another lie from <stone free or die>. It just goes on and on and on. <Z legend of CG> pretending to be all innocent, yet famous for lying, off-topic trash posting, quick to the draw self-fulfilling conclusions, erroneous chess posts if Z bothers at all, and harassing other members daily. Z luvs to be involved in the controversy for the negative attention. No need to thank ftb for giving you some desired affection, sfod.

Far as John goes, among our numerous encounters, we had two hundred-move games. After the first, in 1979, he told me that was his first ever 100-move game. Those scores are not to hand yet.

You will note there are relatively few games from pre-1982. One reason is that I was facing less strong opposition in those days, then moved to Boston, while another is simply that many other games are, as yet, unavailable.

I'd like to see all his Caviar games into my db too (maybe just a pipe dream, but a worthy one).

As far as your selections, since you're doing the work, you should do the selection.

Of course, there's always the <Rhine> rule to contend with - one loss (or two draws?!) for every two wins submitted, I believe - ha!

<[Event "92nd US Open"]
[Site "Los Angeles CA"]
[Date "1991.08.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Browne, Walter"]
[Black "Brooks, Michael A"]
[ECO "E94"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]