🧵 1/ What Are Letters Of Marque And Reprisal And How Could They Be Used To Weaken Drug Cartels? 🚨
2/ Letters of marque and reprisal are government-issued commissions that authorize private citizens (privateers) to perform acts that would otherwise be considered piracy, like attacking enemy ships during wartime
Privateers are rewarded with a cut of the loot they “bring home”
3/ Legal Basis in the U.S.
The U.S. Constitution authorizes these commissions in Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal”
While Congress hasn’t issued one in over a century, the authority to do so still exists
4/ Modern Context: Mexican Drug Cartels
Using letters of marque could be a novel, but effective response to unique threats posed by drug cartels—especially in response to threats by the cartels to target U.S. planes returning illegal immigrants to their countries of origin
5/ How Could They Be Applied?
- Authorization: Congress could issue letters of marque and reprisal authorizing private security firms or specially trained civilians to intercept cartel operations, particularly those involving drug shipments or human trafficking across borders
- Targets: Focus on disrupting supply lines, capturing high-value targets, or seizing assets like boats, vehicles, cash, gold, or equipment used in criminal activities
6/ Advantages
- Flexibility: Private entities operate with more agility than the government, adapting quickly with the tactics of cartels
- Cost: Would reduce the financial burden on taxpayers, as privateers receive only a cut of what they recover & return to the U.S.
7/ Criticism
The use of letters of marque and reprisal would undoubtedly draw criticism, especially from those inclined to elevate abstract, often-inchoate principles of what they deem “international law” above the sovereign interests of the United States
8/ Dismissing the possible use of letters of marque to combat Mexican drug cartels—either on the basis of “international law” or otherwise—overlooks the clear and present threat posed by those cartels to the U.S.
This could prove to be an effective alternative to war
9/ We have no desire to go to war with our southern neighbor
But we also can’t ignore the fact that drug cartels are now threatening to target U.S. planes deporting illegal aliens
That sounds like a great reason to consider issuing letters of marque and reprisal
10/ Letters of marque and reprisal have worked well for the U.S.—and countless other countries—in the past
We’d be wrong not to consider using them against the cartels
11/ Please share if you like this idea—and follow if you’d like to see more posts about letters of marque and reprisal & other amazing, little-known features of the U.S. Constitution
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵1. Senator Schiff just demanded that Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should immediately join Democrats in asking for the release of Kash Patel’s grand jury testimony transcripts
2. Chairman Grassley declined, correctly noting that this isn’t something we ordinarily do, and that we’d need to have a good reason to attempt
3. Schiff seemed to think this was such an obvious move that no one should question the wisdom behind it—and that Grassley should immediately agree to it without giving it another thought or conferring with the Committee
🧵1. The God-given right to bear arms is nearly as ancient as efforts to restrict it are predictable.
2.Efforts to restrict the right to bear arms inevitably grant government—and those whose interests align with the regime in power—a monopoly on the use of guns.
2.Efforts to restrict the right to bear arms inevitably grant government—and those whose interests align with the regime in power—a monopoly on the use of guns.
🧵 🚨 1. The Constitution’s Presentment Clause and the Unconstitutionality of Making Federal Law By Bureaucratic Fiat
2. The Presentment Clause, found in Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, explains in clear terms how a bill becomes a federal law.
3. Under the Presentment Clause, a bill can become a law only if it’s (a) passed by both houses of Congress, and then (b) presented to the president for approval or veto. It supplements Article I, Section 1, which makes clear that *all legislative power* is vested in Congress.
🧵 🚨 1. The Ancestral Multitude: Imagine that every single one of your ancestors from 33 generations ago stood in front of you as holograms. In theory, you’d see 8,589,934,592 figures—more than the current world population!
2. The Numbers Don’t Add Up: Here’s the twist: 33 generations ago—around 1100 AD—the world’s population was just a few hundred million. So how can you have had more ancestors alive in 1100 AD than there were humans on planet earth at the time?
3. Enter Pedigree Collapse: This phenomenon explains the paradox. In your family tree, many of those holographic figures would overlap because the same person would appear multiple times.
🧵🚨 1. Everyone should know the story of Roscoe Filburn, a farmer from Ohio who found himself in the crosshairs of one of the most absurd federal overreaches in history. It’s a tale of government control over the most basic of American freedoms—growing your own wheat.
2. In 1938, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act so the feds could dictate how much wheat Americans could grow on their land. They set quotas, telling farmers like Roscoe Filburn exactly how many acres of wheat they could plant. Notice was sent on cards like this one.
3. Roscoe Filburn was just trying to feed his livestock, feed his family, and keep some for seeds. He planted 23 acres, not because he wanted to flood the market but because he needed it for his farm’s survival. The government said, “No, you can plant wheat on only 11.1 acres.”
2. Congress has the power to define what it means to be born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
3. While current law contains no such restriction, Congress could pass a law defining what it means to be born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” excluding prospectively from birthright citizenship individuals born in the U.S. to illegal aliens.