What red states want and believe their handpicked SC judges should rubber-stamp is the ability to enact laws, rules and actions designed to further the conservative agenda of racism and minority conservative rule.
1 Like
There really hasn’t been any good news out of Texas since the battle of San Jacinto.
1 Like
Like I said, “fuck TX”
ETA: But one day they’ll vote “D”! Demographics are changing!
But Dump would always be taller . . .
Bravo!
1 Like
It’s past fucking time for Biden to implement Eisenhower’s 1957 Little Rock solution. Federalize the Texas National Guard and send them to barracks.
for invoking our sainted Molly.
1 Like
You seem to have taken a Bad Legal Take hook, line, and sinker.
The business of preventing access to the Feds involves the Supremacy Clause, but everything @txlawyer says WRT Texas’ disputed power to concurrently enforce border regulations is spot on.
2 Likes
He will never find someone less telegenic than himself.
I just don’t see Biden actually following through and removing the wire at this point. Plus he needs to send Texas the bill for what will undoubtedly be millions.We’ll see.
We are so lucky to have you on the internet to make sure we all know we are wrong and you are right. Thanks!
I would nitpick that Texas is, at Eagle Pass, enforcing border law to the exclusion of the feds, which really does turn the Supremacy Clause on its head. But the issue is still presented as a question of implied preemption. And at least for now, a bare majority of SCOTUS continues to think state immigration enforcement is (at least in this instance) preempted.
3 Likes
This to me is the most compelling issue today, far more than how many points Nikki Haley will lose NH.
Abbott continues to defy the Supreme Court, and that should have consequences. Just not sure what. And the CBP union is at least officially taking up Abbott’s side. For some reason, their twitter feed is starting to remind me vaguely of Ed Mullins, if you remember him.
1 Like
Seriously, Tex? The Constitution is predicated on the federal supremacy clause, which was enacted in the original Constitution, Article 1, section 8 (Giving Congress the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”), and reaffirmed in the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) Moreover, Article 1, Section 9 provides the Congress (after 1808) with the power to control the “Migration of persons”.
What’s totally shocking is that while Congress clearly has the authority to control immigration, 4 Justices would have given Texas a pass.
Again, dual sovereignty. Federal law only preempts state law where there’s an actual conflict, Congress has expressly preempted state law, or Congress has occupied the field.
My point exactly: Texas has absolutely no right to a) put up razor wire in a border over the feds’ objections; and b) keep the CBP from entering or patroling the area.
Federal objections have no force of law, so they don’t supersede any state law. As to the razor wire, SCOTUS has already allowed BP to cut it down. Whether Texas can exclude BP from the area has not been presented to the courts (yet), so it remains an open question.