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?
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.
I don't know about all of them but Noem sent SD National Guard to the border in TX a long time ago. There was some controversy over whether or not that was a proper or legitimate use of a state's National Guard in service to another state. Of course, all of the controversy was in the MSM rather than among the SD citizens.
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.
The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine teaches that when the superior or higher ranking civil authority makes unjust/immoral law, policy, or court opinion – the lower or lesser ranking civil authority has both the God-given right and duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority; and if necessary, actively resist the superior authority.
I think we are all rapidly approaching a point where we’ll have to make a decision regarding unjust and immoral laws and obeying the civil authority that issues them. I’m not suggesting an uprising, but I do think that we are heading towards a time that sitting on the sidelines will no longer be an available option. The farther we move down this path, it makes me appreciate what some people faced in Germany during Hitler’s rise.
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.
It seems to slowly be gaining traction. 14 other states have weighed in. Trucker protest being organized. Corporate media will frame it as another danger to their precious democracy.
"PHOENIX - In his last act in office, former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey started removing the shipping containers he began placing months ago along the Arizona-Mexico border. The federal government sued Ducey and the state of Arizona back on Dec. 14 demanding the deconstruction of the containers. Ducey was given a deadline from the Department of Justice of Jan. 4 of 2023 to remove the containers." January 2, 2023
As of Jan. 2, Ducey passed the torch to Governor Katie Hobbs, and with it, the responsibility of protecting Arizona's southern border."
"The office of Arizona's 24th governor, Hobbs, issued a statement on the matter, saying, " Democrat Governor Hobbs has said from the start that these shipping containers are an expensive political stunt that did nothing to address the real issues at the border."
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.
Excellent Mark thanks. This brings to mind Jackson & South Carolina's dispute over the Tariff of 1828 (Tariff of Abomination). Jackson said the tariff was Constitutional. SC said no & nullified the tariff. On March 1, 1833, Congress passed the Force Bill, authorizing the president to use military forces against South Carolina. However, a new tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833 was passed which satisfied South Carolina. Cooler heads prevailed. People didn't want the nation ripped apart yet. Interestingly, Jackson later in his Bank Veto speech said that ultimate power does not reside in SCOTUS but there are 4 spheres of political sovereignty in the US. SCOTUS, POTUS, Congress & the States. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-10-1832-bank-veto
This crisis is a defining moment. This type can only resolved with wisdom & rational thinking. However when there is such a chasm between ideologies the chance of success looks bleak.
Great example! This time there's no way that a "Force Bill" passes Congress. Is the Zhou regime ready to launch a military invasion of TX in order to stop TX? I can't believe so.
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.
What a fantastic quote! Thanks for sharing.
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?
I think TX has succeeded all on its own.
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.
Governor Abbott is currently, I believe in India. So he is handling the border while abroad.
So far 25 states have issued statements of support for Texas. My question is, will they do more than make a speech from the Governors mansion?
I don't know about all of them but Noem sent SD National Guard to the border in TX a long time ago. There was some controversy over whether or not that was a proper or legitimate use of a state's National Guard in service to another state. Of course, all of the controversy was in the MSM rather than among the SD citizens.
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 answer is more politics--voting. There are plenty of ordinary Americans who selfishly fail to vote.
I'd rather go fight for Texas then Ukraine or Israel. And I can drive there.
Chuck: I’ll go havers on the gas and bring sandwiches.
Yes!
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
What you are saying is beyond what I know. I thank you for it. I have some studying to do. God bless..
I had to look it up. I found this ….
What is the Lesser Magistrate Doctrine?
The Lesser Magistrate Doctrine teaches that when the superior or higher ranking civil authority makes unjust/immoral law, policy, or court opinion – the lower or lesser ranking civil authority has both the God-given right and duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority; and if necessary, actively resist the superior authority.
I think we are all rapidly approaching a point where we’ll have to make a decision regarding unjust and immoral laws and obeying the civil authority that issues them. I’m not suggesting an uprising, but I do think that we are heading towards a time that sitting on the sidelines will no longer be an available option. The farther we move down this path, it makes me appreciate what some people faced in Germany during Hitler’s rise.
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.
It seems to slowly be gaining traction. 14 other states have weighed in. Trucker protest being organized. Corporate media will frame it as another danger to their precious democracy.
I haven't heard about the truckers, but that would be awesome. 25 states have issued support for Texas.
RFK Jr has also issued a statement supporting Texas.
Trump just issued a statement of support. The trucker story was in Gateway Pundit. Dont know if it will materialize.
Thanks will check out GP.
At 25 states, that is over half the country.
Plus there are a few states that have Republican legislatures and lean Red even with D governors. Thinking NC, Kansas, and KY? Be interesting to see.
Arizona is being quiet🤔
Don't expect anything from Arizona.
Sadly, it's been captured awhile ago.
"PHOENIX - In his last act in office, former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey started removing the shipping containers he began placing months ago along the Arizona-Mexico border. The federal government sued Ducey and the state of Arizona back on Dec. 14 demanding the deconstruction of the containers. Ducey was given a deadline from the Department of Justice of Jan. 4 of 2023 to remove the containers." January 2, 2023
As of Jan. 2, Ducey passed the torch to Governor Katie Hobbs, and with it, the responsibility of protecting Arizona's southern border."
"The office of Arizona's 24th governor, Hobbs, issued a statement on the matter, saying, " Democrat Governor Hobbs has said from the start that these shipping containers are an expensive political stunt that did nothing to address the real issues at the border."
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/latest-shipping-containers-arizona-mexico-border-katie-hobbs-governor
Very sad what has happened to Arizona
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.
Excellent Mark thanks. This brings to mind Jackson & South Carolina's dispute over the Tariff of 1828 (Tariff of Abomination). Jackson said the tariff was Constitutional. SC said no & nullified the tariff. On March 1, 1833, Congress passed the Force Bill, authorizing the president to use military forces against South Carolina. However, a new tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833 was passed which satisfied South Carolina. Cooler heads prevailed. People didn't want the nation ripped apart yet. Interestingly, Jackson later in his Bank Veto speech said that ultimate power does not reside in SCOTUS but there are 4 spheres of political sovereignty in the US. SCOTUS, POTUS, Congress & the States. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-10-1832-bank-veto
This crisis is a defining moment. This type can only resolved with wisdom & rational thinking. However when there is such a chasm between ideologies the chance of success looks bleak.
Great example! This time there's no way that a "Force Bill" passes Congress. Is the Zhou regime ready to launch a military invasion of TX in order to stop TX? I can't believe so.