January 24, 2024
This Could Get...Spicy
Governor Abbot of Texas has declared supremacy regarding the border, putting in defiance of the Biden Administration's order to take down razor wire that Abbot put up.
The governors of at least Oklahoma, Florida, and Virginia have said they are backing Abbot on this. There are currently National Guard contingents from 12 states helping the Texas National Guard secure their border. I believe Governor Youngkin is in Texas at the moment meeting with the V.A. National Guard Troops on deployment in the state.
Biden has issued an ultimatum to Texas to stop interfering with their interference of Texas enforcing the border.
Texas troops, and the troops of several states, are at odds with U.S. national troops. This can go sideways very fast if cooler heads do not prevail.
Are their any cooler heads?
This will probably (hopefully) cool down, but the potential for true mischief, and mayhem is far greater than most suppose.
Some look at this hopefully, those people are fools. If this reaches a head we will all find hell on earth.
Noted political philosopher Admiral Josh Painter has thoughts.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at
08:35 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Yes. I suspect the powers that be in DC think this would be another incident like the Littlerock Nine. I think this would go very differently if they try to follow the same script. Too many people, even in Democrat states (which are socialist Red, not Blue thank you very much!), feel that the border situation has gone too far and want a solution. They won't have public support on this.
Posted by: StargazerA5 at Wed Jan 24 22:31:14 2024 (r9lDC)
2
This issue is not even a little bit complicated - the international border is a federal responsibility. It is the federal government, and only the federal government, who has jurisdiction at controlling and protecting the borders, essentially from foreign invaders (Some of whom are ACTUAL bad guys, like Hezbollah and Al Qaida.), and definitely from people breaking federal law. There should be no state involvement in taking over border protection, except as assistance to the federal government.
Yet we have a federal government that not only refuses to enforce border protection, but is involved in transporting illegal immigrants into the country! At this point, Biden et al are actually violating their oaths to the Constitution, but no one cares because Trump!.
I do not see any good way for getting out of this issue. The Supreme Court was right in their decision, but Texas has just told the court and the rest of the federal government to go pound sand. Federalizing the Texas National Guard, like some people suggested, will just lead to all sorts of different issues and that is not getting into the rank incompetents that now populate the military flag ranks.
Yet we have a federal government that not only refuses to enforce border protection, but is involved in transporting illegal immigrants into the country! At this point, Biden et al are actually violating their oaths to the Constitution, but no one cares because Trump!.
I do not see any good way for getting out of this issue. The Supreme Court was right in their decision, but Texas has just told the court and the rest of the federal government to go pound sand. Federalizing the Texas National Guard, like some people suggested, will just lead to all sorts of different issues and that is not getting into the rank incompetents that now populate the military flag ranks.
Posted by: cxt217 at Thu Jan 25 17:30:38 2024 (ZLF73)
3
Have to wonder what they're thinking, why THIS is the hill Biden wants to die on.
Posted by: Mauser at Thu Jan 25 23:57:29 2024 (nk1Z+)
4
DC as a whole (the Bureaucrats, Biden, The Dems, and the Country Club wing of the Republicans) are being pushed by business interests on this. We saw, when Trump substantially reduced the illegal immigration at the border, that it cut off the flow of below market price labor, forcing wages up. Business desperately wants a massive increase of cheap labor to backfill what Trump stopped to keep a cap on wage costs and meet need going forward. In addition, with the Boomer population buldge retiring and the following generations not being large enough to fully replace them (not just in US but in much of the world), businesses understand that if they can't stuff the pipeline of labor full of people now, in a few years unemployed labor is going to become so scarce that labor will have negotiating power they haven't seen since before the Industrial Revolution.
This realization that the elites are about to lose a lot of the bargaining power they've had for the last few centuries is driving a significant chunk of their desperation.
This realization that the elites are about to lose a lot of the bargaining power they've had for the last few centuries is driving a significant chunk of their desperation.
Posted by: StargazerA5 at Fri Jan 26 08:59:02 2024 (EqqLc)
5
cxt217: "This issue is not even a little bit complicated - the international border is a federal responsibility."
If only it was that simple. Sure, Texas cannot fashion or implement it's own border policy. It can't set up it's own border crossings, it can't set up an additional customs stations right behind the federal one and apply additional screening, etc. But it can certainly limit access to state property, and it can certainly defend itself using the state guard from invasion. Those are actually declared and delegated rights and permissions in the federal and state constitutions. The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified if the states did not retain the right to defend themselves, and this is not speculation, there are actual essays, discussions, speeches etc on the topic in the Library of Congress and other places.
So, the Governor of Texas has looked at the fact that the Cartels, which are certainly an armed force of a foreign nation, are operating in the territory of Texas. The state of Texas can, and should, ask the Federal government for help in this matter, but it is not forced to subjugate itself to that response.
The State of Texas can also seek to control access to state property. There are of course places all over the country that are protected by fences and guards and it is a city, state, or federal offense to enter that property without proper permission. And again, this is state property and the federal government has no real say in the matter.
But expressing it actual legal terms, one of the central arguments will be made is the difference between law and policy. Federal law supersedes state law where they are in conflict. But does federal policy, which is just created by unelected administrators, supersede state law? In this case, the state and federal laws are actually in agreement. The feds are actually by law supposed to be detaining anyone not in the country with legal permission. But as a matter of policy, they are not doing so. If the state chooses to align itself with federal law, but not federal policy...
The problem here from a judicial perspective is that the designed resolution to this is that Biden should have been impeached and removed from office long since over this. It's not really a matter designed for the judicial branch to resolve.
If only it was that simple. Sure, Texas cannot fashion or implement it's own border policy. It can't set up it's own border crossings, it can't set up an additional customs stations right behind the federal one and apply additional screening, etc. But it can certainly limit access to state property, and it can certainly defend itself using the state guard from invasion. Those are actually declared and delegated rights and permissions in the federal and state constitutions. The Constitution of the United States would not have been ratified if the states did not retain the right to defend themselves, and this is not speculation, there are actual essays, discussions, speeches etc on the topic in the Library of Congress and other places.
So, the Governor of Texas has looked at the fact that the Cartels, which are certainly an armed force of a foreign nation, are operating in the territory of Texas. The state of Texas can, and should, ask the Federal government for help in this matter, but it is not forced to subjugate itself to that response.
The State of Texas can also seek to control access to state property. There are of course places all over the country that are protected by fences and guards and it is a city, state, or federal offense to enter that property without proper permission. And again, this is state property and the federal government has no real say in the matter.
But expressing it actual legal terms, one of the central arguments will be made is the difference between law and policy. Federal law supersedes state law where they are in conflict. But does federal policy, which is just created by unelected administrators, supersede state law? In this case, the state and federal laws are actually in agreement. The feds are actually by law supposed to be detaining anyone not in the country with legal permission. But as a matter of policy, they are not doing so. If the state chooses to align itself with federal law, but not federal policy...
The problem here from a judicial perspective is that the designed resolution to this is that Biden should have been impeached and removed from office long since over this. It's not really a matter designed for the judicial branch to resolve.
Posted by: David Eastman at Fri Jan 26 13:45:15 2024 (R7Z4D)
38kb generated in CPU 0.0172, elapsed 0.2059 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.1963 seconds, 362 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
71 queries taking 0.1963 seconds, 362 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
