They do this all the time. Maybe Biden should call their bluff, execute his powers as Commander in Chief, and order the National Guard in Texas to turn on State Police.
We’ll have to arrange some kind of post wwII Berlin level air campaign to support Austin.
Every 15 minutes a C130 land fully stocked with Trader Joes Chili lime rolled tortilla chips, apple cider, and Joe’s O’s.
And drop brown bags filled with shit on Ted Cruz and Albots property on the way back. Time management maximized.
Why would we freely add to Ted Cruz’s collection of bags of shit? He’d love that.
Honestly, Ted Cruz stood before a podium this week and give a speech against the insanity of adding more Razorwire, mentioning that is has done nothing to prevent growing immigration numbers since they started putting it up. Fuck that guy, for real, but on this particular issue he is on our side.
Yeah, heading into the 2018 midterm Trump tried to create a border crisis. It didn’t work. This is their election trick, create a lot of smoke, rile up the base, think that it will rile everyone else up.
I mean let’s look at the core aspect of Abbott’s argument from his statement.
That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Right out the gate, Abbott is based his ideology on a dissenting opinion. That is, the NON-MAJORITY finding of the court in Arizona v. United States. In fact, Arizona v. United States indicated explicitly that enforcement of the border was the sole privilege of the Federal Government. So right out the gate Abbott is literally using a case that ruled the opposite of the determination he indicated in his statement.
Additionally, Art. I, § 10, C. 3 of the Constitution.
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.
Historically this was used for Native American invasions of property and so the key factor in cases around this is “will not admit of delay”. Texas is not burning. No historical read of this section of the Constitution supports immigrants coming into the Nation. By definition as we have it thus far, Texas is not being invaded. Additionally, Scalia’s conceptualization of this section, no other Justice has joined in on that understanding. So outside of the opinion of a single justice, a Governor just saying “I’m being invaded! I get to invalidate federal law!” nobody else has ever indicated this is the way it should be read.
With Art. I, § 10, C. 3, you can say “I’m being invaded!” But you still have to follow the law. You can fight invaders and maintain the law of this land, they are not mutually exclusive things, no matter how hard Abbott or Scalia wishes it to be otherwise.
And finally, the Art. IV, § 4 argument.
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.
Again, no court would uphold that Texas is being invaded. But Abbott is adamant about Biden “isn’t enforcing…” And the thing is, Governors do not get to legally make that determination. What laws are and are not being enforced by a President is the sole prerogative of the Executive branch. (Wayte v. United States)
The Governor of Texas cannot just unilaterally make a determination that the President isn’t XYZing. That’s what the court system is for and distinctly the thing that Abbott has lost. If the Governor felt that the President was not holding up their end, they have every right under Article III of the Constitution to take it up there. Which that’s what Abbott did and lost. Also, why when he was questioned if his defiance would be upheld by SCOTUS, he merely indicated that he felt the 5th Circuit would uphold it. Meaning, he knows that SCOTUS will overturn any determination the Governor is making on this front.
And with all of that, his core argument has nothing. It’s easy to pick apart. Now here’s the thing, Gov. Abbott is not stupid in the legal sense. He’s quite aware that his determination is unfounded. He’s banking on stirring the pot enough to make either Biden do something so that can be plastered all over the place or getting the issue fresh into his base’s minds.
And like I said, this is exactly what they did 2018 and lost. Abbott is just trying to get under everyone’s skin and he seems determined to spend as much of Texan taxpayers’ money in litigation to do that one thing.
Again, no court would uphold that Texas is being invaded.
Which is good because if we classify border-crossing migrants as “invaders” then not only does that mean really bad things for them, it means Abbott was funneling invaders further inside our borders by paying to bus them to denver or fly them to chicago or whatever else.
It’s pretty clear he didn’t think the treasonous implications of this particular initiative through very well.
Please, leave. Don’t come crying to us the next time your electrical grid gets overwhelmed.
Hey! Y’all used to rely on us to kick-start y’all’s power grids! Back in the '70s and '80s! Back when racism and cocaine reigned supreme!
Now y’all are all like, “ew, why is that racist coke-head talking to me?” Well, it’s cuz you’re woke or something!
Hey! Listen to me and stop walking away! Why are you taking our American flags?? Hello?
Speaking of power grids, have fun trying to keep yours maintained once you secede, Texas. It barely works as it is now.
Really? It seems to be working great. In fact, Texas has the most diverse power generation with nat gas AND coal AND solar (largest national producer) AND wind (largest national producer) AND nuclear. Coupled with the largest oil play in America along with a significant amount of the country’s refining capacity, I think Texas would be just fine in a secession.
I’m in favor of calling the bluff, but leave it peaceful:
- Army bases remain US army bases and the national guard remains US. Texas must raise its own military without any US military equipment. Existing US servicemen must resign if they wish to join the Texas military, and will be treated as foreign army – they must leave US bases.
- Any companies headquartered in Texas will be considered foreign companies and subject to all relevant taxes and laws. Employees will be considered employed by foreign companies. Any subsidizes and other credits to these companies are forfeit.
- Employees of the state government will be considered foreign state agents.
- Trade deals must be negotiated with the US. Any US facilities providing goods and services, like water or energy, will now charge a fair market rate.
- Texas must renegotiate trade with other countries.
- For the first five years, Texas and the US must allow people to freely move out of or into Texas. If any Texas resident wishes to live as a US citizen, Texas must pay for their relocation.
- After that, or if they choose to renounce US citizenship, Texans are considered foreigners and will be treated as illegal immigrants if they enter the US without proper documentation.
- Texas universities lose all US accreditation. Current Students may transfer to a US university at no cost, and have their existing credits recognized. Texas will pay for any moves. New students from Texas will be considered foreign students and applicants for admissions and tuition at US universities.
- Any attack on US people or property or facilities will be seen as an act of war.
- Texas senators and house representatives are expelled from Congress.
They’ll be crying and begging to rejoin the US within a month. They’ll be a fourth world hell scape within a year if they don’t.
This is basically what happened at the beginning of the civil war except the south had much better terms, and the confederates decided to attack a US army base because they’re assholes and that’s what assholes do. They would absolutely do the same again.
The power dynamic has shifted so much that it would be a 1000x speedrun if they did it again.
And honestly? Let them. Maybe we can do reconstruction properly this time.
The US civil war isn’t what civil wars look like in the modern context. There was a boarder and most of the North was safe. That’s not what modern civil wars look like. They look like Serbia.
You have to go to work and on your way to work there’s someone who’s been sniping people for months. The cops won’t do anything because “let’s go Brandon” or some shit, the mayor no longer has control over the police, and you still have to go to work because you still have to pay for food. So you duck and weave between cars with rotting drivers to get in to your office and you hope you don’t get killed today.
Modern civil wars have no borders. They look like mass shootings, car attacks, snipers, bombings, and other random terrorism. Or they look like the Syrian civil war, with 30 different groups all fighting each other aligning with each other sometimes and fighting others, for decades, sometimes aligned with the government and sometimes against it.
The key thing about Texas is that they have a ton of oil. Even assuming a normal war, the US military lives off oil. If it was quick they could probably do it without dipping in to strategic reserves, but what would happen to the oil infrastructure at the start of the war? Damaging that supply could impact the US ability to wage war, so that’s not a risk they’re going to take.
If anything comes of this beyond Republicans using it to pump up their base, I’ll be surprised.
There is still the matter of the Constitution saying that states can’t do that.
Texas immediately becomes the newest Narco-State, gets it’s own CIA coup and Democrats refuse to make them a state again, forcing them to be a territory.
