The bustard's a fortunate fowlVia Aesop comes news that the Republic is now in a full fledged constitutional crisis. The short version: Texas put up razor wire along the border, the Federales cut it down, Texas sued to stop the Fed interference, and the Supreme Court sided with the Feds. Now Texas has told SCOTUS to pound sand and the Texas National Guard is putting up more razor wire.
with almost no reason to growl.
Saved from what would be
illegitimacy
by the grace of a fortunate vowel
It is unreported whether Texas Gov Abbot echoed Andy Jackson's famous words that the SCOTUS has issued its ruling, now let them enforce it.
This is an enormous blow to the prestige and legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and demonstrates just how fragile that sense of legitimacy is. Good grief, what an unholy mess.
May God save this honorable Republic.
20 comments:
Seems to me Texas is acting like the democrats -- "Screw the law."
I'm split on it. On the one hand I believe in a lawful society. On the other hand, the democrats have pretty much already ended participation in such.
States rights.
BobF - no, Texas is not acting like the democrats. The Supremes have passed no law regarding the border protections that Texas is taking. Biden has passed no law regarding the border protections that Texas is taking. And... Congress has passed no law regarding the border protections that Texas is taking.
Now, when Dems violate actual laws like, oh, say, those about non-peaceful assembly, arson, anarchy, murder, assault, battery, robbery, theft and such, well, that's actually violating actual laws against all of those.
When Dems proclaim themselves sanctuary cities and then back down on taking them, that's not against the law. It is against what principles they say they have, but in all my years I have never seen Dems to actually have principles (as a party, and many as individuals) that actually mattered.
Texas has state laws about protecting their border. Which they are following.
Funny, the Nation has laws about protecting the border which are very much FOR protecting the border with a hard barrier (passed in Congress and signed into law by a president,) and FOR arresting and deporting illegals and NOT giving illegals material support (passed in Congress and signed into law by a president) that are on the books and current. But Congress refuses to call for the president and the various agencies to enforce US Law. Which is... illegal, by the way. You can't unenforce a law just because you decide to do so, without violating the law, which is... illegal.
The Federal Government and the Administration are acting in an illegal way. Almost like it's treason or something.
And LindaG is right. States have the right to protect their borders against non-citizens, especially illegal entrants into these United States.
Unless God burns out the cancer within the Beltway, even He cannot save the Republic.
But then again Sodom got cleansed....
I'm sure the SCOTUS got away with this ruling due to the Democrats rebranding ILLEGAL ALIENS as "Asylum seekers," even though they KNOW that Biden is AIDING AND ABETTING the INVASION of our country! California voters once voted that the gas tax could not be raised. Then "governor" brown eliminated the gas tax and replaced it with a "fee" of the same amount as the previously removed tax. Then he raised the fee. The law never covered fees, just taxes... 'See how this works?
KUDOS to Texas for firing the first volley!!! That being said, with the MILLIONS of ILLEGAL ALIENS that have already crossed into our country and melted into the population since Biden TOOK office, what Texas is doing is akin to patching the hole in Titanic after she's resting on the sea floor...
Folks, it's TIME. It's LONG PAST TIME to TAKE BACK OUR REPUBLIC! ...Whatever it takes...
There ARE "hills to die on", this in one of them.
I do believe the Constitution says something about protecting the member States against invasion. Seems to me the represenatives of our governing bodies hav already broken the pact.
Beans: So, what does the SCOTUS decision mean? That is, if there is a SCOTUS decision and it is ignored, what ...
Don't get me wrong, every fibre of me wants to write Gov. Abbott and volunteer to assist (I'm old and it's a long drive!). However, I wonder if this isn't just another step toward where the Democrats want to send this country anyway.
Meanwhile my freeze dryer continues nonstop and the cleaning kit is still in use. Glad I gave up Hoppes long ago. At the current rate the living room would be unlivable.
I'm afraid I look at this a bit differently. Texas is performing a task reserved to the Federal government, to wit: border protection. The SCOTUS decision appears to be based on "supremacy" of federal law over state law.
In my mind, this is actually good news: it means that SCOTUS is following Constitutional law and not "feelings", and could be a precursor of interesting decisions already on the docket (2A, the "Chevron deference", whether Smith is an "officer" without having received Senate consent, etc).
It also adds strength to the argument that it is the Federal government's job to protect the borders and the Federal government is *failing* to do so. Which, in turn, points directly to Biden and his refusal to follow Constitutional law.
Remember: SCOTUS already ruled in Trump's favor regarding a border wall back in 2021 based on a law passed by Congress. Unfortunately, it's the executive orders that are the problem here because they cannot survive the change in administrations. That's why a law is needed to build a border wall, and why a law is in place to build a border wall.
A razor wire fence is a temporary barrier, not a wall. We need a wall.
Let's not lose focus. The point is that Trump was building the wall according to the law, the Democrats (and too many RINOs) fought it, and now it's Biden who is failing to "faithfully execute" the law.
If you guys read Abbott's declaration, he points out that the Federal government is ignoring its own laws and that Article IV section 4 says "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion", and that, since the Federal government is refusing to protect the border, the Constitution trumps Federal law. Which sounds right to me.
It seems to me that the federal government does have the responsibility and authority to control and manage the international borders. When I went to school, a long time ago, I admit, the federal government had three branches: the legislative, the executive and the judicial. The federal government should get it's act together and figure out how and with what we are going to control our own borders. There is plenty of blame to go around in the 3 branches who have refused to seriously deal with the problem for decades.
If I understand international law a person has the right to present themselves at an international border and ask for asylum without being wrapped in razor wire, drowned, or sent into a traackless desert. So an asylum seeker who presents themselves and asks is not an illegal alien.
I'm just thankful we are not Europe with hordes of African, Middle Eastern and Asian migrants trying to get in or we would be in real trouble.
Has any wall anywhere in history worked to keep the "them" out? Great Wall of China? Hadrian's Wall? Berlin Wall? others? Can't think of a success story offhand.
Regards Iron City's comment. The invaders are counseled by NGOs to present themselves as 'refugees' to use a weak point in our own laws. It apparently is not necessary that they offer
proof of the declaration. The problem will become closer to solution when the NGOs tax exemption is removed and contributions to the NGOs lose their tax reduction treatment for the donors. If you wish to get a warm fuzzy from giving to an NGO, by all means do it. Don't ask me to pick up the slack for your favourable tax treatment.
More for Iron City. Haven't been keeping up with as to where the invaders have been coming from, eh? Hadrian's Wall is currently thought to have intended to keep the inhabitants of Roman England in place not to keep the Scots out. Same point in the Berlin Wall. Both walls seem to have done their tasks fairly well. Just saying.
I merely note that Slow Joe seems to be ignoring the Supreme ruling on college loans with impunity.
When there is no Rule of Law, it works BOTH ways!
@Iron City - There is no such thing as international law. There are temporary agreements between nations. We call these things "treaties". They are mostly observed in the breach.
If these people were "refugees" (which of course they are not), then they had already reached sanctuary in Mexico. They have no "right" to continue on to a different country with better welfare benefits.
God bless Texas!
The current ruling Junta has already thumbed their collective noses at various Supreme Court rulings. Why shouldn't we?
There is no law, only Zuul.
It is a bit late for God to save the Republic. Restore it perhaps but there is this.
“This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.”
“But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even if they despise us in the writing of it.”
~ Mike Vanderboegh
Abbott is trying and deserves the support of all (small r) republicans.
One is reminded of the malfeasance and unethical behavior of CJ Taney in the Dred Scott case that was a major factor in triggering CW1. I think Roberts is the modern Taney.
"Now Texas has told SCOTUS to pound sand"
This is widely reported but wildly incorrect. SCOTUS has not ordered Texas to take any action nor to refrain from any action. SCOTUS merely vacated the 5th Circuit's injunction against the Feds removing the wire. 5th Circuit said "Hey, Fedbois, leave them wires alone (while this gets litigated)." SCOTUS said "Nah, they can't order you to leave that alone, go ahead and do whatever you like."
Texas is free to put up all the wire it wants. Texas is free to not put up any wire at all. Texas is free to hold a Cowboy Action Shooting match in the middle of Shelby Park. Texas has not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything.
There's no "Constitutional Crisis" here. No one is defying SCOTUS because SCOTUS didn't order anyone to do anything. This entire story is a creation of a media that knows less about civil procedure than they know about guns.
I am siding with Texas as they are actually enforcing Federal law, requiring immigrants to use an established border crossing, vice crossing where ever they choose. There's also the issue of defending our borders from invasion. While not a military invasion, unchecked immigration is essentially an invasion, which is the duty and responsibility of the Fed to uphold. When they refuse to uphold that constitutional duty, what is a state to do?
When the swamp tells SCOTUS and the people to pound sand, Americans like our forefathers should react to unjust actions of tyrants as is appropriate. The Dems are inviting an invasion.
They are importing illegals, drugs, criminals and worse. No checks for disease, perverts, terrorists. Who can defend this except for the deluded.
Texas is defending the law and civilization. As for the utility of walls, those who argue against them, tell us do you lock your car at night, your house?
Post a Comment