Does a particular state of the federal union have the right under the Constitution of the United States to prevent illegal entry—under federal law—of foreign nationals across the national borders of the federal union? That appears to be the question posed by Texas’ actions in deploying its National Guard to restrict cross border traffic at certain points, and to prevent federal agents of the Border Patrol from removing such restrictions. At least that’s my seat of the pants summary of the constitutional issues that have been raised.
Thanks, Mark, for your well reasoned observations. These are very good points to consider whatever one's initial bias is on the topic. I can understand the reasoning of the SCOTUS ruling given your explanation.
Yet for some reason I keep thinking of the now famous albeit construed "dictum" that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Granted, that is a sort of facile argument pulled out of people's brains to support whatever they think the Constitution does or does not imply on their behalf. Yet, consider Jefferson's argument on this subject:
"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
There is certainly a logic to that argument and I find it persuasive in a situation that endangers the welfare and even the integrity of the nation as a whole. So what is an "invasion"? Might that be measured by its impacts rather than by its structure? If so, Gov. Abbott has IMO a good point from Texas' perspective. It doesn't seem like we should let semantics get in the way of the real effects on peoples' lives.
Just saw on Redstate that DC has told Abbot he has until the 26th of January to essentially relinquish control over the disputed area. Not exactly sure what this entails or requires, but seems unnecessarily provocative given the circumstances. But then I’m just a peasant, so what do I know.
Like others have said, myself included, January isn’t even over yet!
Gov. Abbott is being very smart. The Supreme Court didn't actually order Texas to DO anything. The Court gave the Biden Regime permission to do something. Those are two very different things! Texas is simply laying more wire and moving in more resources. Also the court deferred on the majority of the case that is still before the 5th Circuit. Abbott is exploiting this window to rally more governors, more personnel, and to secure the moral high ground.
Good for Abbott, good for Texas, good for America.
I wonder how many illegals will be voting This problem is now beyond politics. The politicians have sold us out on this issue. I will be voting and encouraging people to vote, but I will not hold my breath expecting a change.
A confrontation where no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory.[1][2] Anyone initiating aggression might trigger their own demise. At the same time, the parties are unable to extract themselves from the situation without either negotiating a truce or suffering a loss, maintaining strategic tension until one of those three potential organic outcomes occurs or some outside force intervenes.
What would I do if there were a conflict of loyalties between the Federal government and the government of Texas? A question that I may have faced while serving in the Texas Air National Guard. I swore to protect and defend the US and Texas constitutions, to obey the orders of the President and the Governor of Texas. I would have resolved that conundrum in favor of my country, which happens to be Texas, Robert E. Lee was forced to answer a similar question.
Abbott has taken his time, as one would expect a man of his background, a former District Judge, Texas Supreme Court Justice and Texas Attorney General, he has tried most folks patience, finally he is taking action. Abbott must immediately call up the entire Texas National Guard thus preventing the President from calling them into federal service.
Mark brings up an interesting point which has always been a head-scratcher for me: Enforcement.
Case in point being the numerous instances where, say, Mayorkas or Wray or some other luminary appears before some House or Senate committee and lies their ass off. The dogs bark yet the caravan moves on. In the case of SCOTUS and TX, if neither side blinks, is there an interpretation of the Constitution currently or will new legislation be required to settle this polemic? The current position of SCOTUS is, as I understand it, only temporary.
well. . While waiting for the politics to play out, real damage has been done to the lives and property of Texans. The fraudulent Biden administration made it clear, on day one, that there would be no solution to our open border other than our complete surrender.
The law is the law. All are required to obey the law: Governments, (state, Local Federal.) Corporations, religious organizations, other entities and the individual citizen. To violate the law has consequences. As an entity entrusted to enforce the law, failure to enforce the law is considered negligence (criminal or otherwise) and in the military you can be stripped of your legal authority. Being under the law means you have duties, obligations and responsibilities.
With that said as a basis.
Mark
You are a former FBI agent, so you know more about this than me. But here is what I think. From a military stand point. We serve the constitution and the LAW supports the constitution
But here is what I see.
The people crossing the border are doing it Illegally.
The US Government is fully aware of this fact.
The government is not doing its duty to stop this illegal activity.
As a matter of fact, in some ways, the US Government is encouraging and abetting this illegal activity.
Example:
So If I am the guard at the local Armory. And you are constantly stealing guns out of the Armory. Am I innocent because all I did was look the other way? If I know you are doing an illegal activity but I do nothing to stop it, am I not breaking the law? As a matter of fact, each time you steal an M4 rifle, I, as the guard, have a bus and a ticket waiting for you with a supply of with food and water.
What if the local sheriff starts to complain because his county is having problems with increased gun crime because of my failure to enforce the law which I am obligated to enforce? Do I , as the guard, have the right to tell him to shut up and stand down?
Or am I guilty of being an accomplice to your crime and possibly conspiracy to commit a crime? Have I not failed to uphold the law and failed in my duties and obligations to my fellow citizens.
Does the sheriff have the duty and obligation to stop me and therefore you?
End of the example.
So, to our problem.
So If the US Government fails to do its duty and therefore possibly abets the criminal activity of illegal immigration, would it not be true that they are breaking the law and therefore violating the Constitution? And if the Federal Government is breaking the law and possibly not upholding the Constitution, is it not within the duty and obligation of the State to step in and protect its citizens and its borders?
I am not a lawyer. I have no legal training. But the above is an effort to show a common-sense explanation of what I am seeing. Mark, I do not know. I do not pretend to know. I am just trying to make sense out of this mess. You’re a former FBI guy. Maybe you can help.
BTW I will state the uncomfortable fact, this situation is fraught with danger. After what happened with the prosecution of the Jan 6 riot, I feel we are all on unsteady ground here. In no way am I advocating any type of violence or illegal activity against the federal government. I just want to know what the hell is going on.
If the humans crossing the border were carrying guns they would be called invaders. If they leave the guns at home they are called migrants. But, either way, they are a conquering force. “Immigration” is just war by other means. The end result is the same. “Immigrants” take and live on your property, they subjugate you to their will, and they take over your society. It took at least a hundred years of migration by Germanic tribes into the empire until the Romans realized that there weren’t enough Romans to defend Rome. Then it fell in 476 when Romulus Augustulus was deposed. The fact that we are having a debate over the meaning of the word invasion is the canary in the coal mine. The canary is dead. It’s too late to stop the invasion.
I have a gut feeling that this is going to be very, very interesting. We're living on top of a power keg. Will this be one of the sparks that sets it off? Many people have had quite enough of DC throwing its weight around. We shall see.
My husband just reminded me that we sent the military to South Korea to prevent North Korea from invading and overrunning South Korea, we sent tens of thousand of troops to fight and die in South Vietnam while fighting the North Vietnamese, we sent troops to Afghanistan and spent and left billions of dollars in equipment and military weapons there to protect the Afghans from the Taliban -- uh, I actually forget, weren't they Afghans also? We've also now spent billions of dollars in Ukraine and 'word' is we have Americans advising, if not fighting there. We don't hesitate to send the U.S. military and billions of dollars all over the world to protect the citizens of other countries.
With that said, what is wrong with this country standing up and taking the necessary action to stop the flow of unauthorized individuals invading our country? We have a system, legal immigration, that used to be applied. Our political representatives have totally abandoned their responsibility. They have no backbone. They must be owned by international conglomerates who value the dollar more than a U.S. citizen living in Kansas, Idaho, Texas, or Mississippi, or any other state or they'd fight for us. This problem shouldn't ever have had to be pondered by SCOTUS. Texas or any other border state has every right to station their National Guard on their border and prevent this insult to our sovereignty.
Impeachment...
Thanks, Mark, for your well reasoned observations. These are very good points to consider whatever one's initial bias is on the topic. I can understand the reasoning of the SCOTUS ruling given your explanation.
Yet for some reason I keep thinking of the now famous albeit construed "dictum" that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Granted, that is a sort of facile argument pulled out of people's brains to support whatever they think the Constitution does or does not imply on their behalf. Yet, consider Jefferson's argument on this subject:
"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."
There is certainly a logic to that argument and I find it persuasive in a situation that endangers the welfare and even the integrity of the nation as a whole. So what is an "invasion"? Might that be measured by its impacts rather than by its structure? If so, Gov. Abbott has IMO a good point from Texas' perspective. It doesn't seem like we should let semantics get in the way of the real effects on peoples' lives.
Just saw on Redstate that DC has told Abbot he has until the 26th of January to essentially relinquish control over the disputed area. Not exactly sure what this entails or requires, but seems unnecessarily provocative given the circumstances. But then I’m just a peasant, so what do I know.
Like others have said, myself included, January isn’t even over yet!
https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1750570470448275946
Gov. Abbott is being very smart. The Supreme Court didn't actually order Texas to DO anything. The Court gave the Biden Regime permission to do something. Those are two very different things! Texas is simply laying more wire and moving in more resources. Also the court deferred on the majority of the case that is still before the 5th Circuit. Abbott is exploiting this window to rally more governors, more personnel, and to secure the moral high ground.
Good for Abbott, good for Texas, good for America.
HOLD THE LINE TEXAS!
Many Thanks.
That is good info!
Bob
I wonder how many illegals will be voting This problem is now beyond politics. The politicians have sold us out on this issue. I will be voting and encouraging people to vote, but I will not hold my breath expecting a change.
Is this the first step in a series of cascading "if then" failures caused by the Feds, to enable Texas to succeed?
Mexican Standoff:
A confrontation where no strategy exists that allows any party to achieve victory.[1][2] Anyone initiating aggression might trigger their own demise. At the same time, the parties are unable to extract themselves from the situation without either negotiating a truce or suffering a loss, maintaining strategic tension until one of those three potential organic outcomes occurs or some outside force intervenes.
What would I do if there were a conflict of loyalties between the Federal government and the government of Texas? A question that I may have faced while serving in the Texas Air National Guard. I swore to protect and defend the US and Texas constitutions, to obey the orders of the President and the Governor of Texas. I would have resolved that conundrum in favor of my country, which happens to be Texas, Robert E. Lee was forced to answer a similar question.
Abbott has taken his time, as one would expect a man of his background, a former District Judge, Texas Supreme Court Justice and Texas Attorney General, he has tried most folks patience, finally he is taking action. Abbott must immediately call up the entire Texas National Guard thus preventing the President from calling them into federal service.
Mark brings up an interesting point which has always been a head-scratcher for me: Enforcement.
Case in point being the numerous instances where, say, Mayorkas or Wray or some other luminary appears before some House or Senate committee and lies their ass off. The dogs bark yet the caravan moves on. In the case of SCOTUS and TX, if neither side blinks, is there an interpretation of the Constitution currently or will new legislation be required to settle this polemic? The current position of SCOTUS is, as I understand it, only temporary.
well. . While waiting for the politics to play out, real damage has been done to the lives and property of Texans. The fraudulent Biden administration made it clear, on day one, that there would be no solution to our open border other than our complete surrender.
I'd rather go fight for Texas then Ukraine or Israel. And I can drive there.
Mark
Preamble
The law is the law. All are required to obey the law: Governments, (state, Local Federal.) Corporations, religious organizations, other entities and the individual citizen. To violate the law has consequences. As an entity entrusted to enforce the law, failure to enforce the law is considered negligence (criminal or otherwise) and in the military you can be stripped of your legal authority. Being under the law means you have duties, obligations and responsibilities.
With that said as a basis.
Mark
You are a former FBI agent, so you know more about this than me. But here is what I think. From a military stand point. We serve the constitution and the LAW supports the constitution
But here is what I see.
The people crossing the border are doing it Illegally.
The US Government is fully aware of this fact.
The government is not doing its duty to stop this illegal activity.
As a matter of fact, in some ways, the US Government is encouraging and abetting this illegal activity.
Example:
So If I am the guard at the local Armory. And you are constantly stealing guns out of the Armory. Am I innocent because all I did was look the other way? If I know you are doing an illegal activity but I do nothing to stop it, am I not breaking the law? As a matter of fact, each time you steal an M4 rifle, I, as the guard, have a bus and a ticket waiting for you with a supply of with food and water.
What if the local sheriff starts to complain because his county is having problems with increased gun crime because of my failure to enforce the law which I am obligated to enforce? Do I , as the guard, have the right to tell him to shut up and stand down?
Or am I guilty of being an accomplice to your crime and possibly conspiracy to commit a crime? Have I not failed to uphold the law and failed in my duties and obligations to my fellow citizens.
Does the sheriff have the duty and obligation to stop me and therefore you?
End of the example.
So, to our problem.
So If the US Government fails to do its duty and therefore possibly abets the criminal activity of illegal immigration, would it not be true that they are breaking the law and therefore violating the Constitution? And if the Federal Government is breaking the law and possibly not upholding the Constitution, is it not within the duty and obligation of the State to step in and protect its citizens and its borders?
I am not a lawyer. I have no legal training. But the above is an effort to show a common-sense explanation of what I am seeing. Mark, I do not know. I do not pretend to know. I am just trying to make sense out of this mess. You’re a former FBI guy. Maybe you can help.
BTW I will state the uncomfortable fact, this situation is fraught with danger. After what happened with the prosecution of the Jan 6 riot, I feel we are all on unsteady ground here. In no way am I advocating any type of violence or illegal activity against the federal government. I just want to know what the hell is going on.
Thanks
Bob
Robert Fausti
If the humans crossing the border were carrying guns they would be called invaders. If they leave the guns at home they are called migrants. But, either way, they are a conquering force. “Immigration” is just war by other means. The end result is the same. “Immigrants” take and live on your property, they subjugate you to their will, and they take over your society. It took at least a hundred years of migration by Germanic tribes into the empire until the Romans realized that there weren’t enough Romans to defend Rome. Then it fell in 476 when Romulus Augustulus was deposed. The fact that we are having a debate over the meaning of the word invasion is the canary in the coal mine. The canary is dead. It’s too late to stop the invasion.
I have a gut feeling that this is going to be very, very interesting. We're living on top of a power keg. Will this be one of the sparks that sets it off? Many people have had quite enough of DC throwing its weight around. We shall see.
My husband just reminded me that we sent the military to South Korea to prevent North Korea from invading and overrunning South Korea, we sent tens of thousand of troops to fight and die in South Vietnam while fighting the North Vietnamese, we sent troops to Afghanistan and spent and left billions of dollars in equipment and military weapons there to protect the Afghans from the Taliban -- uh, I actually forget, weren't they Afghans also? We've also now spent billions of dollars in Ukraine and 'word' is we have Americans advising, if not fighting there. We don't hesitate to send the U.S. military and billions of dollars all over the world to protect the citizens of other countries.
With that said, what is wrong with this country standing up and taking the necessary action to stop the flow of unauthorized individuals invading our country? We have a system, legal immigration, that used to be applied. Our political representatives have totally abandoned their responsibility. They have no backbone. They must be owned by international conglomerates who value the dollar more than a U.S. citizen living in Kansas, Idaho, Texas, or Mississippi, or any other state or they'd fight for us. This problem shouldn't ever have had to be pondered by SCOTUS. Texas or any other border state has every right to station their National Guard on their border and prevent this insult to our sovereignty.