23 Jan 24
@averagejoe1 saidCongress can fix, they choose not to.
SCOTUS orders removing barbed wire. Jesus.
But THIS is the question…..What if The Wall were there?!?! Take it down?
Jesus again.
@averagejoe1 saidBarbed wire set up by the State of Texas used to stop the Border Patrol from fulfilling their legal duties as granted by Congress under its Constitutional powers.
SCOTUS orders removing barbed wire. Jesus.
But THIS is the question…..What if The Wall were there?!?! Take it down?
Jesus again.
A no-brainer really.
@no1marauder said10th amendment lets states do what they want to inside their boundaries. So, Texas rolls barbed wire one-yard inside the state line, which state line would be along that same boundary. Where in the constitution, upon which SCOTUS deliberates, is there some provision which would restrict their protecting their border, for god sakes? We can all agree that it is for protection. Is SCOTUS limiting TX rights to defend itself?
Barbed wire set up by the State of Texas used to stop the Border Patrol from fulfilling their legal duties as granted by Congress under its Constitutional powers.
A no-brainer really.
@wildgrass saidThat is not the issue, but then, your indoctrination limits your ability to see one. I hate it, I know. The forum can be cruel.
Congress can fix, they choose not to.
@averagejoe1 saidNo, it doesn't.
10th amendment lets states do what they want to inside their boundaries. So, Texas rolls barbed wire one-yard inside the state line, which state line would be along that same boundary. Where in the constitution, upon which SCOTUS deliberates, is there some provision which would restrict their protecting their border, for god sakes? We can all agree that it is for protection. Is SCOTUS limiting TX rights to defend itself?
Congress has passed extensive laws covering the subject of immigration and outlining the duties and responsibilities of the Border Patrol. Maybe you missed this Constitutional provision:
Article VI Supreme Law
Clause 2 Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof[; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
@no1marauder saidI consider all of that to be subject to interpretation. I would not be surprised if Texas were excepted from any law which causes them to not be able to defend themselves. Frankly, if you walked into SCOTUS right now, and said exactly that, I think they would take it under deliberations. They have to see that Texas New Mex and Arizona have a problem that Kansas ,et al, will never have to face. They must be treated differently and have more rrights to defend themselves. I will get on the docket, and simply go in there and argue logic common sense, and rationale. I will not lose.
No, it doesn't.
Congress has passed extensive laws covering the subject of immigration and outlining the duties and responsibilities of the Border Patrol. Maybe you missed this Constitutional provision:
Article VI Supreme Law
Clause 2 Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof[; and al ...[text shortened]... e bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
@averagejoe1 saidThat argument already did lose:
I consider all of that to be subject to interpretation. I would not be surprised if Texas were excepted from any law which causes them to not be able to defend themselves. Frankly, if you walked into SCOTUS right now, and said exactly that, I think they would take it under deliberations. They have to see that Texas New Mex and Arizona have a problem that Kansas ,et al, wi ...[text shortened]... on the docket, and simply go in there and argue logic common sense, and rationale. I will not lose.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down three contested sections of an Arizona law designed to crack down on illegal immigrants."
"The court overturned three other provisions on pre-emption grounds. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy said."
"In a press release, ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III applauded the holding striking down three provisions of the Arizona law. “As the ABA argued in the amicus brief it filed in the case, immigration law and policy are and must remain uniquely federal, with states having no role in immigration enforcement except pursuant to federal authorization and oversight,” Robinson said."
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_overturns_most_of_arizona_immigration_law_upholds_papers_chec/
23 Jan 24
@averagejoe1 saidThat a majority of the SCOTUS including the Chief Justice and Amy Coney Barrett (a Trump appointee) ruled that the wire may be removed by Border Patrol, even if it is just overturning a lower court injunction, strongly suggests Texas will be a loser in this litigation.
I consider all of that to be subject to interpretation. I would not be surprised if Texas were excepted from any law which causes them to not be able to defend themselves. Frankly, if you walked into SCOTUS right now, and said exactly that, I think they would take it under deliberations. They have to see that Texas New Mex and Arizona have a problem that Kansas ,et al, wi ...[text shortened]... on the docket, and simply go in there and argue logic common sense, and rationale. I will not lose.
23 Jan 24
@averagejoe1 saidAbleman v. Booth upheld the power of the federal government over the states.
10th amendment lets states do what they want to inside their boundaries.
@averagejoe1 saidIt is the issue. The Biden administration is only doing what they're doing because Congress has not told them otherwise. New law could force their hands. The bill just passed by the Senate would increase funding for the border patrol by a lot.
That is not the issue, but then, your indoctrination limits your ability to see one. I hate it, I know. The forum can be cruel.
@averagejoe1 saidWell, it seems Governor Abbott recognizes he can't do everything he wants inside the Texas boundaries, at least as long as there is a Democratic President:
10th amendment lets states do what they want to inside their boundaries. So, Texas rolls barbed wire one-yard inside the state line, which state line would be along that same boundary. Where in the constitution, upon which SCOTUS deliberates, is there some provision which would restrict their protecting their border, for god sakes? We can all agree that it is for protection. Is SCOTUS limiting TX rights to defend itself?
"The only thing that we're not doing is we're not shooting people who come across the border, because of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” Abbott said during the Jan. 5 radio interview with Dana Loesch, a former editor at Breitbart News and spokesperson for the National Rifle Association."
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/11/texas-border-migrants-greg-abbott-interview-shoot/
@wildgrass saidIf true, it's about time.
It is the issue. The Biden administration is only doing what they're doing because Congress has not told them otherwise. New law could force their hands. The bill just passed by the Senate would increase funding for the border patrol by a lot.
@no1marauder saidExactly. It’s not removing the barbed wire,
Barbed wire set up by the State of Texas used to stop the Border Patrol from fulfilling their legal duties as granted by Congress under its Constitutional powers.
A no-brainer really.
It’s temporarily moving it, so the authorities can do their job.
Like not letting people drown.
Good grief. Republicans are a hateful lot.
@shavixmir saidIt's not the role of goobermint to protect people from their own stupid choices shatmixer.
Exactly. It’s not removing the barbed wire,
It’s temporarily moving it, so the authorities can do their job.
Like not letting people drown.
Good grief. Republicans are a hateful lot.