Already, folks, we're going to jump into the vaunted Ben Shapiro show mailbag. Remember, you have to be a subscriber over at dailywire.com in order to have your question answered. Danny says, hey, Ben, I just got done watching the first episode of invasion on the border. I have a few questions. We know President Biden is abdicating his duties described in the Constitution in regards to the border. Aren't CBP officers doing same, since they took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution?

I'm assuming they took an oath so correct me if I'm wrong, but by facilitating a Biden's illegal action, it seems to me they are violating their oath. We've seen union strike for less. So why isn't the CBP union fighting back by striking or refusing to break their oath in civil disobedience type fashion? I would think their oath to the Constitution is more important than their job, especially since morale is at an all-time low and they are leaving for other law enforcement agencies. Maybe I'm being naive. So it is against the law for law enforcement officers to strike. That is not something the public sector unions are typically allowed to do under the law, specifically because you are then striking against public safety, right? If police officers could simply strike and then leave cities unprotected,

they could hold up the city for pretty much anything they wanted.

So typically that is not legal.

As far as whether Border Patrol officers are violating their oath of office,

I mean, the oath of office that they take is that they will support

and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies

foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same and take the obligation freely

and all the rest of it. But there is an interpretation whereby their constitutional duty

is to follow the orders of the executive branch unless it is an egregious violation of

constitutional oath. So, yeah, I think at best you can make the case that people, you know, if they don't like it,

they can resign.

But by the same token, I think they're holding out for a time when they can actually do their

jobs.

And if they're being legally prohibited from doing their jobs, the best answer is to sue,

not necessarily to resign. I think that there is a lawsuit forthcoming, I would assume, from members of Border Patrol being hindered in their duty by the Biden administration. If not, I would certainly be in favor of one. Blake says, with the House Committee advancing articles of impeachment against Mayorkas and constant talks of impeaching Biden over the past year, is this likely to backfire? Will this be giving Democrats the ability to say during the election year, see if it's so wrong when we do it? Why are they doing it? If I remember correctly, kicking Omar and Talibah, foreign affairs committee after Democrats kicked to MTG from her committees, did nothing to gain popularity for Republicans. No. So I'm totally fine with Republicans advancing articles of impeachment against Majorcas and talking about impeaching Biden.

Why? Because Democrats already open this can of worms. The rules apply to everybody equally or they apply to no one equally.

If impeachment is only to be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors, actual crimes named in impeachment documentation, well then that should apply to everybody.

But if only one side gets to play with impeachment and the other side says, no, no, no, we take impeachment so seriously as a tool,

then we will never use it unless it fulfills these basic conditions, then you are effectively

granting the tool to the other side. Because if the American public thinks that

impeachment is just another political tool, it loses a lot of its political sting, which may

...