Mexican drug cartels present a "clear and present danger," says Tex. Gov. Rick Perry

The governor, who of course is an active U.S. presidential candidate, spoke again today of Mexican drug cartels, applying a bit of political cliche in the process. "Let's not kid ourselves, what we're seeing on our southern border is nothing less than a war," Perry added. "They're a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and we can't take any option off the table, such as cooperating militarily with Mexico, like we did with Colombia several years ago. They're carrying violence to our cities and they're selling drugs to our children."

Perry also said that as governor of Texas he had "first hand experience with the failure of Barack Obama's border security policies." The governor reiterated his opposition to amnesty for undocumenteds, saying that "the answer (to immigration issues) is not to excuse those who broke the law in coming to this country."

Earlier this week the Mexican ambassador to the United States threw cold water on the suggestion of direct military intervention. The idea of foreign (U.S.) military forces being summoned into Mexico would be contrary to its constitution, laws and long history of invasion by other countries. See the ambassador's unequivocal reply here: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2011/10/no-us-troops-in-mexico-says-ambassador.html.

Perry did not acknowledge that the United States and Mexico are already partners in the $1.5 billion Mérida Initiative of 2007, which includes provisions for U.S. training and equipping of Mexican forces, as well as the sharing of intelligence information concerning drug cartel and organized crime activities.

His comments were delivered at a summit in Washington, D.C. focusing on family values.

Footnote: If you're wondering about the origin of those famous legal words, "a clear and present danger," they come from a unanimous 1919 U.S. Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a case called Schneck v. United States. That case upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, and concluded that there was no First Amendment right to speak out against the military draft during a time of war. The "clear and present danger" standard, as it was called, is no longer an accurate statement of American constitutional law. It was long ago replaced by other free speech tests which show greater deference to First Amendment guarantees.

But for history's sake, here are the Court's key words in that ruling: "The question in every case is whether the words used in such circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."