Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl LX halftime show was nearly entirely in Spanish. In fact, the artist only said one line in English.

‘The only thing more powerful than hate is love.’

The rest of the English-speaking was left to singer Lady Gaga, who appeared as a wedding singer for some Puerto Rican nuptials before dancing with Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, aka Bad Bunny.

Singer Ricky Martin also made a guest appearance during the well-shot and well-produced performance that saw Bad Bunny sing on top of a pickup truck, a convenience store, and throughout a grass maze.

Bad Bunny did not wear a dress — but the show did include two men dancing sexually with each other up against the truck as Ocasio performed on the roof. Other than that, the only likely contentious part of the performance was that it was almost completely in Spanish.

Bad Bunny performed a medley of songs, taking obvious pride when he sang about his native territory of Puerto Rico, and held the flag high.

However, the singer did stop at one point to say just one sentence in English: “God bless America!”

RELATED: Liberal media goes after comedian for not knowing everything about Bad Bunny: ‘I don’t care’

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

Bad Bunny yelled the line before shouting out around a dozen other countries, including Canada.

As a crowd followed the singer off the field, background performers carried and waved flags that were seemingly limited to North and South American countries.

At the same time, Levi’s Stadium’s video screen in Santa Clara, California, read, “The only thing more powerful than hate is love,” in plain black letters.

Elsewhere, Turning Point USA’s alternative, “The All-American Halftime Show,” garnered millions of views across different platforms — particularly on YouTube, as more than 4.4 million viewers tuned in concurrently to watch artists like Kid Rock, Brantley Gilbert, and Lee Brice.

RELATED: Bad Bunny, Green Day, and ICE: ‘The most political Super Bowl ever’

Photo by Kevin Sabitus/Getty Images

Rock band Green Day’s pregame performance could possibly be considered controversial, given the band’s heavy anti-President Trump bias, but they seemingly exhausted their political statements the night before when they told ICE agents during a performance to quit their jobs.

To celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, the public address announcer at Levi’s Stadium spoke about the Declaration of Independence before the singing of “America the Beautiful.”

Cheers for troops in the Middle East capped a fairly patriotic opening ceremony for the game.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fearless, Politics, Super bowl, Halftime show, Super bowl lx, Bad bunny, Ice, Green day, Immigration, California, Sports 

If Friedrich Hayek taught us to inquire about who should decide and Abraham Lincoln taught us to ask to what end, then the question of immigration compels us toward a third and inescapable question: Where is the line drawn?

The principles of subsidiarity and federalism demand that matters should be resolved at the lowest level of authority competent to manage them. Much of what the national government has usurped would be more wisely and justly managed by the states, local communities, families, and institutions of civil society.

A nation that treats its laws as optional, its borders as permeable, and its citizenship as devoid of meaning invites the very chaos that destroys liberty.

The Constitution itself was framed to embody this division of powers, preserving the vitality of local self-government against the dangers of centralized tyranny.

Yet subsidiarity is not an absolute doctrine, nor is federalism morally sovereign. America’s founders never regarded federalism as an end in itself, but as an instrument ordered toward justice, liberty, and the common good.

When the claims of federalism or local autonomy come into conflict with the equal dignity of the human person, federalism must yield. This is the profound teaching of the Civil War. That great conflict established beyond doubt that there are moral limits that no level of government — federal, state, or local — may transgress, even under the guise of divided sovereignty. The principle of human equality proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence sets a boundary that no appeal to states’ rights or local preference can override.

Before 1861, the defenders of slavery advanced an argument we hear echoing in our own day: that each state must be free to decide for itself the very foundations of republican government. The Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford lent its sanction to this view regarding slavery. But Lincoln repudiated it utterly.

He understood that the rights of man do not vary according to geography or popular vote. The self-evident truth that all men are created equal declares that no majority, no state legislature, no municipal council may lawfully decree some men unfit for liberty on grounds that deny their humanity. To enslave a man is to violate his natural rights; to nullify federal authority in matters essential to national existence is to dissolve the Union that secures those rights.

Lincoln did not abolish federalism — he preserved it by subordinating it to the higher law of nature. Federalism endures insofar as it is grounded in moral truth and serves to perpetuate a regime dedicated to equal natural rights.

This distinction becomes decisive when we turn to immigration. It concerns not merely internal policy but the very nature of the American political community: who may enter, under what conditions, and by whose authority.

The power over naturalization and the regulation of foreign entry are among the essential attributes of sovereignty, which the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) has expressly delegated to the federal government. Borders define the “We the People” whose consent forms the government. A people that cannot control its own borders or decide who can become a citizen cannot long govern itself justly or preserve equality under law, our regime’s moral foundation.

The federal government exists not to confer human dignity (which is inherent in every person) but to secure it among the specific members of the polity. Human dignity demands that no one be enslaved or deprived of life and liberty without due process; it does not entail an unqualified right to enter any political community or claim automatic citizenship.

The right to migrate is not the same as the right to enter any country of one’s choosing. Conflating the two dissolves the distinction between universal natural rights and the particular rights of citizens, a distinction the founders carefully preserved.

RELATED: Civil war chatter rises when Democrats fear losing power for good

Photo by Sean Bascom/Anadolu via Getty Images

The real question for us is not merely whether authority is federal or local, but whether policy is directed toward justice, human dignity, and the nation’s common good. Lincoln saw that democracy unbounded by moral limits becomes incoherent and self-destructive. A nation that treats its laws as optional, its borders as permeable, and its citizenship as devoid of meaning invites the very chaos that destroys liberty.

Federalism is a means to the end of justice; it is not a refuge from moral duty. Local communities may not, under color of autonomy (sanctuary cities), nullify the Union’s authority over matters essential to its preservation — any more than Southern states could nullify the Fugitive Slave Clause or obstruct the enforcement of laws necessary to national integrity.

These acts of interposition — driven by radical professional activists and their followers in cities like Minneapolis — echo the nullification and secession doctrines Lincoln condemned as fatal to the republic. In his 1861 Annual Message to Congress, he accurately described the true nature of such “principles”: “rebellion thus sugarcoated” that has “been drugging the public mind.”

The lesson of Lincoln and the founders is unchanging: Decentralization without moral anchors descends into anarchy; centralization without moral purpose hardens into despotism. True statesmanship orders power toward the permanent truths enunciated by the Declaration of Independence. Only then can the American experiment endure as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people — and dedicated to the Declaration’s proposition “that all men are created equal.”

Editor’s note: A version of this article was published originally at the American Mind.

​Opinion & analysis, Abraham lincoln, Federalism, Immigration crisis, Immigration and customs enforcement, Mass deportations, Ice raids, Subsidiarity, Union, Anarchy, Rebellion, Civil war, Declaration of independence, Natural rights, Equal rights