Daily Archives: 8 August 2025

Abandonment of Duty, Attempt at Tyranny

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) has asked the Texas Supreme Court to remove State Congressman Gene Wu from office and declare his seat vacant. Wu is the Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair and one of 57 Progressive-Democrats who ran out of Texas for the explicit purpose of denying the Texas legislature a quorum and thereby prevent it from operating at all.

Abbott’s argument centers on this [citations omitted]:

Every elected officer of this State, including Wu, swears an oath to “faithfully execute the duties of the office” to which they are elected. The principal duty of a legislator is to attend and participate in legislative sessions as required by Article III, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution. The quorum provisions further underscore that attendance is not optional; it is an affirmative constitutional obligation. The Texas Constitution authorizes the House to “compel attendance of absent members.” That power would be meaningless if members could freely make themselves absent for political advantage without consequence. Such actions also render meaningless the Governor’s authority to call a Special Session, for which the Legislature “shall meet.”
Representative Wu has openly renounced these constitutional mandates by fleeing the State of Texas to break quorum, obstruct legislative proceedings, and paralyze the Texas House of Representatives.

Wu answered via television interview (he doesn’t have to respond to the filing until late this afternoon).

Let me be unequivocal about my actions and my duty. When a governor conspires with a disgraced president to ram through a racist gerrymandered map, my constitutional duty is to not be a willing participant.
Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office.

Aside from the fact that Wu’s irrelevant ad hominem inclusion illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of his position, his oath of office requires him to obey his constitutional duty to appear in the State Congress when it is in session. There is no leeway for absenting himself solely because he disagrees with the outcome of a policy debate and ensuing vote—most especially is there no leeway for absenting himself as part of an effort to prevent that vote from occurring.

That he’s part of Party’s movement to block a single piece of legislation, a redistricting bill, from being acted on is merely the narrow, proximate implication of his action.

The question here, though, is much larger than a single disputed piece of legislation; it embraces the nature and basis of democratic governments. In a democracy, especially in a republican and representative democracy such as ours, there are those who win in a policy contest and those who lose. The foundation of (representative, republican, even popular democracy) requires that the defeat be accepted by those in the minority and that those who lost are free to try again in a succeeding, even later renewed, policy debate but are not free to shut off all legislative capacity unless and until they, this minority, get their losing position fully accepted.

Texas’ Progressive-Democratic Party politicians who are deliberately shutting down the Texas government, denying it its ability—its obligation—to legislate, are not filibustering a single piece of legislation in an effort to block its passage. Their behavior is categorically different from that. These persons are not just violating their oaths of office. They are attempting to impose, from their minority position, their demands on an entire government at the cost of no functioning government absent the majority acquiescing to them. This is the stuff of tyranny, and thus their preventing a quorum is antithetical to democratic principles. All of them should be removed from office.

Abbott’s filing can be read here.

“Collective Defense Guarantee”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the hype in a Fox News article centered on Russia’s flying armed drones through NATO member Lithuania’s airspace.

In recent days, drones launched from the Russian-aligned state of Belarus have pierced Lithuanian airspace, drawing alarms from the region’s political and military leaders. One drone traversed approximately 100 kilometers, loitered ominously over Vilnius carrying two kilograms of explosives and ultimately crashed inside a military training zone. Earlier in July, another drone forced the evacuation of high-level officials when it crashed near the Šumskas border crossing.

Lithuania’s Defense Minister, Dovilė Šakalienė, has responded [paraphrased by Fox News].

while stressing that there is no evidence suggesting the latest drone breached intentionally, said “this is an unprecedented and alarming incident,” especially given that the drone flew just one kilometer from the president’s residence.
Describing the behavior as “reckless drone incursions,” she warned they amount to “a direct test of NATO’s resolve.” In response, Lithuania has pledged to review its defensive protocols and urged NATO to bolster its air defenses as a clear message that the alliance stands ready to safeguard every inch of its territory.

And this, from an outside “expert:”

Andrew D’Anieri, associate director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, told Fox News Digital that while it isn’t crystal clear whether Putin is openly testing Article 5, his apparent lack of caution about these actions is telling.
“The kind of alarming thing is, we haven’t seen any real response from NATO to any of these,” D’Anieri said.

Here’s the text of Article 5 of the NATO treaty [emphasis added]:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Bruno Kahl, Germany’s chief spy…cautioned that Russia’s growing employment of hybrid tactics—ranging from sabotage and cyberattacks to disinformation—raises the likelihood that NATO may ultimately feel compelled to invoke Article 5.

For good or ill (I suggest for ill), Lithuania’s and other member nations’ responses meet the letter of that mutual defense requirement and that nothing, of necessity, would change were Article 5 formally invoked.

A mutual, collective defense arrangement is crucial for defending against invasions or other attacks, but such arrangements are practically executable only when what’s included in “collective self-defense” is understood rather than distorted. Beyond this simple thing, only when what’s included is clearly understood can necessary improvements—which Article 5 so desperately needs—be made.

In furtherance of that last, here is Article 3:

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

This Article is dishonored—other member nations betrayed—by nearly a third of the current member nations as those deplorables steadfastly refuse to fund their own defense establishments much less honor their commitments to fund NATO directly to a percentage of their GDPs.

Article 12 organically provides for review of the treaty’s functioning:

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

If such a review is not carried out in any serious manner (see the shortcomings above), then it’s time for serious nations to leave NATO (as Article 13 provides, or without it) and form a new, actually serious mutual defense arrangement.