Oh look, a bunch of morons who don’t understand the Constitution even though SCOTUS just explained it to them.
Yeah, and if the way that the headline to this story implies that Abbott actually has this right seems a little strange, you might also be interested to see two other recent headlines from them, “Hamas & Jihadist Flags Appear at National March for Gaza in D.C.” and “RFK Jr. Supporters Would Vote for Trump Over ‘Extremist’ Biden”
This article is 100% pushing an agenda
Thanks for that context. I switched my vote as a result. I hadn’t bothered to read the shit cause after one article on the topic, I don’t really care enough to read more. But useful to know the tone of it. Fuck 'em.
I’m pretty sure they understand it. They just don’t care.
Nobody hates America like Republicans hate America.
They don’t want America for all. They want 'Murica for a few.
Well, we can have the polluted and destroyed parts. They just want the money, and, like, Miami.
Well, the way they’re going, there won’t BE a Miami in x number of years when it’s swallowed by the sea as a result of the actions of them and their owner donors.
25 Republican Governors Agree to Defy Supreme Court Ruling
Hmmm… 🤔
“states have a right of self-defense, under Article 4, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.”
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
Article 4, Section 4:
“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 on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
I don’t see a) anything there that defines “invasion” or b) grants the states the power to act if the United States chooses not to.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:
"Section 10: Powers Denied to the States
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Again, “invaded”.
It’s pretty clear from section 10, since it’s also speaking of troops, ships of war, and engaging in war that it means MILITARY invasion, not an influx of citizen refugees.
Dictionaries at the time back up that reading:
So if Abbott’s argument is that migrants crossing the border is an ”invasion,” then would the act of loading refugees onto busses and sending them into other states be an “attack?”
Asking for a friend.
Oof - that’s an interesting one. If immigrants constitute an “invasion” in the military sense, then Abbott is committing an act of treason as defined by the Constitution by providing them with transportation services, which would count as levying war against the United States as well as giving aid to its enemies.
I like the way you think.
Well they’ve also redefined the second amendment to mean “We can own whatever weapon we want” so constitutional literacy is clearly not a strong suit.
Regardless of whether it still has a place in modern society, the Second Amendment was absolutely intended that way. You had literal field artillery pieces under private ownership as a conscious decision. Tycoons were arming whole regiments with personally purchased equipment in our early wars, pretty much up to WW1 and the normalization of large, well equipped and standardized standing armies made the older methods unviable.
Constitutional originalism is an idiot’s game for the conservative who wants to return to a past that never existed and the otherwise ignorant. The wealthy slave owners who made up the largest proportion of delegates might have had an occasional worthwile ideal and idea worth keeping but arguments should be made for the present, not the past.
This is one of the wackiest, though not surprising, stories lately.
SCOTUS tells Texas that in order for the border patrol agents to apprehend immigrants, they have the constitutional authority to move or cut razor wire. Texas responds with a threat of deploying the national guard to patrol the borders. Texans, this is your governor trying to spend your tax dollars to do something the entire country is already paying for.
This isn’t unlike congress sitting on their asses arguing over specifics to mediate the crisis at the border. Everyone (mostly) wants the same thing but politics is getting in the way of actionable solutions. It’s all bullshit to garner support from single-issue voters. They say their number one issue is “the border” yet they only care about the lies that come out of their elected politicians mouths over supporting actual immigration reform and diverting a fraction of our military budget to ease issues causing people to seek asylum to begin with.
Abbott isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.
But he’s a useful bludgeon.
I find it interesting that those single issue voters who care about “the border” only really care about the southern border, even though the drugs they want to stop are smuggled in from the east and west coast and the bad people they want to keep out are coming across via airplane.
what I’m saying is that these people should want the canadian border, all international airports, and coastal ports of entry as militarized as the southern border but they don’t say shit about the others.
There aren’t hundreds of thousands of migrants a month coming over the Canadian border. It is, in and of itself, a legit bipartisan concern.
The issue I have is the narrative and fear mongering dividing us and preventing our politicians from accomplishing anything. Having just searched on the issue for a mere ten minutes, it’s clear that politicians and news organizations are using a variety of numbers to prover their side of the story (how a news outlet can have a side is still something that makes me fume). There’s numbers related to “crossings”, “apprehensions”, “migrants”, “asylum seekers”, “detentions”, and “deportations” that can all be used or ignored to prove one or the other side is more strict or lenient regarding the southern border. Even the historically neutral organizations I found in my quick search focused on one issue at a time making the entire story unclear.
No one’s actually trying to help anyone here. The human race is doomed.
You’re assuming they wouldn’t just as quickly move to close off (or create) any of those other borders if given the chance.
Traitors
I do not consent to the traitorous actions of my governor.
Ditto!!
Brian Kemp should have never been allowed to step foot in the GA governors office in the first fucking place. Especially after he was allowed to oversee his own election as Lt Gov, somehow “lost” hundreds of thousands of voter registration applications prior to his own election, and intentionally deleted voting machine data when it was subpoenaed by the courts during the fallout from that election. The man is a corrupt piece of shit, so of course he would align with another corrupt piece of shit.
This “news” site has an ad telling me about how socialist billionaire are hoarding there wealth and how I can too (they are selling gold coins)
You’re seeing ads? All I’m seeing is a clean website. How 'bout stepping into the 21st century and use an ad-blocker.
I have one. My ad blocker wasn’t what I thought someone was going to try to give me an inferiority complex about today.
Interesting that there’s always an urgent “border crisis” right before an election.
the president should nationalize all of those guardsmen and tell them to stand down or have them protect the border patrol who will be removing the razor wire.
What a horribly biased and misleading headline!
Texas troops are not making anything more secure. They’re murdering and otherwise brutalizing people who have done nothing wrong with no benefit except for political points for a fascist.
Yesterday when I saw this map, my state wasn’t on it. Today, not so much. 🤔 Wonder what the source for this stuff is.
It’s treason then
If Texas wasn’t killing people with razor wire in a river, I might be willing to consider the argument they have a right to enforce federal immigration laws inside their borders. They may have the correct legal argument but lack the moral high ground.
deleted by creator
