Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Didn’t We Settle This Divisive Concept Long Ago?

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in , ,

John C. Calhoun (National Portrait Gallery)

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

Governor Glenn Youngkin has signed on to a constitutional position that Virginia and other Southern states used to justify secession from the United States over 170 years ago.

Here, in a nutshell, are the events that led to this situation:

  • Greg Abbott ordered razor wire placed in the Rio Grande River to deter immigrants from crossing;
  • U.S. Border Patrol agents tried to remove the wire but were prevented from doing so by the Texas State Patrol and the Texas National Guard;
  • The United States sued;
  • A lower court ordered the Border Patrol not to attempt to remove the razor wire;
  • In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the lower court order. There were no written opinions accompanying the decision;
  • Despite the Supreme Court decision, Gov. Abbot still refuses to allow the Border Patrol access to certain crossing points, thereby denying that federal authority supersedes the state;
  • Almost all the Republican governors issued a statement saying that because the federal government “has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states,” Texas has the right to exert control over the international border in order to defend itself;
  • Governor Glenn Youngkin was one of the signatories.

Shades of John C. Calhoun! This compact theory and nullification were put to rest at Appomattox in 1865.

If, as Gov. Youngkin believes, a governor can defy the Supreme Court regarding immigration, what is to stop a future Democratic Virginia governor and legislature from ignoring Supreme Court rulings and enacting strict gun control measures on the grounds that the national government has broken its compact to ensure public safety?

For more analysis and commentary on this development see here and here. For a more measured analysis, see here.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

137 responses to “Didn’t We Settle This Divisive Concept Long Ago?”

  1. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    The Dems doing the Hamas thing…figures…Marxist ideologues gotta do the same lying play. They break all norms first then cry for the so-called smart people to make the evil Israelis/Pubbies stop.
    The real Constitutional crisis is the dishonest, characterless Dems who only care about power.
    Why swear fealty to the Constitution if you do everything you can to undermine it?
    Joe Biden, after being installed and not getting 81 million “votes,” swore to faithfully execute the laws. We have border laws. If enforced, they work. If enforced, they discourage illegal entry. But Dems (who do not believe in “law” except to use it to retain power and silence opposition through lawfare) not only enforce it poorly, they break it and facilitate, they fund NGOs (if it’s an NGO why does the NG part get govt money to help the govt break the law? Sounds like a real RICO enterprise to me. What the NGOs are doing is illegal, but what do Marxist Dems care about the law except as a weapon against their “enemies” – you know, Americans who don’t agree with them), they have sanctuary cities, and when finally there is the slightest bit of pushback all the “sanctuary cities” whine about the costs – try being Texas and Arizona for 30 years of this.
    If the Dems weren’t Marxist hacks, they would have impeached Mayorkas and Biden (for the graft, too, but again, it requires principles, not the devotion to retaining power by any means necessary).
    The SCT opinion just invalidated the injunction on cutting the wire. That’s all it said. So the Border Patrol can go in and cut the wire, and Texas can put it up again.
    Abbott mooted the opinion by declaring an invasion, which he has the power to do under the Constitution, and which it clearly is, because Biden and Mayorkas and all of the power-crazed, lawfare engaging Dems are allowing treason.
    To the extent there is a Constitutional crisis, it is because of the Dems, lawfare, two tiered justice, censorship, etc, etc, etc.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Conservatives shredding the Constitution… who is surprised…? Trump showed them the way…,

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Greg “Sitler” Abbott. Millionaires shilling for billionaires. The 1%er kowtowing to the .01%er.

      Of course, to 90% there will be no discernible differences. The Kochs, and Soros clan won’t bother with those of us at the BR level. We’re not worth it. No blood in turnips.

    2. SudleySpr Avatar
      SudleySpr

      Quite the opposite

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        The Constitution shredding Conservatives does work also… I stand corrected….

        1. SudleySpr Avatar
          SudleySpr

          Texas can nullify the Supreme Court ruling on illegal immigrants! ‘Sanctuary cities’ and marijuana legalization opened the door

          https://lawenforcementtoday.com/texas-can-use-nullification-sanctuary-cities-and-marijuana-legalization-opened-the-door

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You said that already… it was no more correct then…

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You said that already… it was no more correct then…

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You said that already… it was no more correct then…

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Fake News site?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites

            “Published fake news about police relations amid the George Floyd protests and source of Oregon fires, as well as material by QAnon supporters.”

          5. James Kiser Avatar
            James Kiser

            If you use wikipedia you have already lost the argument.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If that was the only reference, you’d be right. Law Enforcement Today is not an objective source and they have a rep and apparently play with Qanon, etc. If I was trying to make an argument, I would not cite them as authoritative at all. They don’t publish general articles about police but rather selective articles that they use to advocate their point of view sometimes not even connected to police:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9af560d046eda89e1f2778053032f895eb1dd922e2c24f209b33949bd0cf02eb.png

            just another eho chamber

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            You said that already… it was no more correct then…

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            just repeats it when he KNOWs it’s FAKE!

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            just repeats it when he KNOWs it’s FAKE!

  3. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Old school refresher on the Nullification Crisis of 1832. Just in case you are a bit rusty on that period. Fascinating episode of U.S. History. Jackson, Calhoun, and Clay played the parts perfectly.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9ZzngA5YMU

  4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    Mr. Dick you should have used this picture of Calhoun. A brilliant debater, a measured orator, his passion came from his eyes not his voice, and notoriously difficult hair to manage. He suffered for years from tuberculosis. A Unitarian by faith.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d45e271afb6ef803f08ccf1dd175d6ac501608f265d8cfbdc021d65b8fd95601.jpg

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      That was my first inclination, but I decided that wild-looking figure would detract from my main argument, so I decided to go with the National Portrait Gallery version.

      A Unitarian? That’s fascinating.

    2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      The day Calhoun hanged his hair dresser.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/570c507e6077d2cabaeefbf779e236e6cf754712b1ec8906ea362173971268c5.jpg

  5. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    The Supreme Court did not order the State of Texas to do anything.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      You’re right, the ruling is they do nothing.

      1. Bedfordboy Avatar
        Bedfordboy

        Here’s the Supreme Court Order. Perhaps you could point out where it rules that “they do nothing”.

        (ORDER LIST: 601 U.S.)

        MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2024

        ORDER IN PENDING CASE

        23A607 DEPT. OF HOMELAND SEC., ET AL. V. TEXAS

        The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated.

        Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application to vacate injunction.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Perhaps you point out where it permits Texas to continue.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Or perhaps you point out where it forbids it from continuing.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            SCOTUS vacated a lower court opinion that said that Abbot COULD defy/impede/ the Feds from exercising the powers granted them in the Constitution.

            How a lower Federal court can rule that way in the first place is inscrutable…. The judge apparently was willfully blind to the Law and US Constitution.

            Did that lower court judge give the justification for his order?

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            We all know how this is going to end… even with this Conservative SCOTUS. The Right is gaslighting us yet again… painful to have to watch their train wreck in slow motion…

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Not sure SCOTUS is 9-0 onboard. BUt yes, more gas lighting and more folks from the far right
            linking up with the Trump GOP that apparently now includes Youngkin. Some on SCOTUS
            have been itching to roll back Federal power so I expect rulings that are no unanimous and
            perhaps 5-4 or 4-5. Conservatives cling to the Constitution where it serves their interests but
            today have no problem trashing it if it serves them politically. Hypocrisy on steroids. What
            the GOP wants is control. whatever it takes and then a strongman leader who will dictate
            policy without regard to Constitution or elections if they can once again, suppress. That’s
            the “stolen election” thing. It’s when you make voting easier.. it leads to “stolen elections”!

          5. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            The “lower Federal court” was a 3 judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Its opinion is readily available. Had you read the opinion, you (hopefully) would understand that it addressed a Texas state law claim and had nothing to do with impeding DHS from performing its lawful duties. In fact, the Court sought to avoid it.

            Serious and legitimate Constitutional issues involving the interplay between the federal government, whose only powers are those enumerated by the Constitution, and state governments, in which all other powers are reserved, are at play in this dispute. Ad hominem attacks, relentless sarcasm and baseless hyperbolic exaggerations about what opinions mean before taking the trouble to read them are antagonistic to rational discussions about those issues.

            Do better please.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            IF so, why did SCOTUS vacate it? Do better yourself!
            Why are you quoting known fake news sites?

          7. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            I posted the Supreme Court’s Order above. It is direct from the Court’s website, which may be a fake news site to you, but not to most of us.

            Had you read it before commenting, you could have seen that no reason was given for vacating the injunction. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your opinion of the Court’s reasoning, including that of the four Justices who would have left the preliminary injunction in place as the Fifth Circuit considers Texas’ appeal.

            Typing is easy; thinking is a bit more difficult. Try the latter before you type again.

          8. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            I posted the Supreme Court’s Order above. It is direct from the Court’s website, which may be a fake news site to you, but not to most of us.

            Had you read it before commenting, you could have seen that no reason was given for vacating the injunction. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your opinion of the Court’s reasoning, including that of the four Justices who would have left the preliminary injunction in place as the Fifth Circuit considers Texas’ appeal.

            Typing is easy; thinking is a bit more difficult. Try the latter before you type again.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think I got you mixed up with the person posting the fake news site.

            My apologies.

            Do you know what the justification was for the order given by the Texas Court?

            That’s what I was asking.

            I knew that SCOTUS gave none.

          10. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think I got you mixed up with the person posting the fake news site.

            My apologies.

            Do you know what the justification was for the order given by the Texas Court?

            That’s what I was asking.

            I knew that SCOTUS gave none.

          11. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            I hope the following link works. The 5th Circuit held that the district court legally erred when it denied the injunction on sovereign immunity grounds. Both the district court and the 5th Circuit otherwise agreed that Texas had satisfied the factors necessary for the particular injunction sought by Texas. Please note the parties’ agreement referenced by the Court in its conclusion.

            https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-5th-circuit/115633389.html

          12. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So – this is what the Texas appeals court said about sovereign immunity that SCOTUS rejected on it’s face:

            ” Finally, Defendants argue they enjoy jurisdictional immunity under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). They are again mistaken. The INA bars lower courts from issuing injunctions against certain immigration statutes, specifically 8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). That bar does not apply here, however. To cut Texas’s c-wire, Defendants did not rely on any of the statutes covered by the INA bar. Instead, they relied on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(3) and 1357(a)(3), neither of which are covered. Accordingly, an injunction against the Defendants would, at most, have only a “collateral effect on the operation” of the covered statutes, which is permissible. See Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 553 n.4, 142 S.Ct. 2057, 213 L.Ed.2d 102 (2022).

            Having concluded Defendants do not enjoy sovereign immunity against Texas’s trespass to chattels claim, we briefly consider Texas’s likelihood of success on that claim. In its TRO, the district court concluded that Texas had a strong likelihood of success because “[1] the concertina wire is state property; [2] Defendants have exercised dominion over that property absent any kind of exigency; and [3] they have continued to do so even after being put on notice of [Texas’s] interest in the property.” On appeal, Texas reasserts its likelihood of success on that claim. Defendants do not brief this issue and have thus waived any argument. Bailey v. Shell W. E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710, 722 (5th Cir. 2010). We therefore agree with the district court that Texas has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its trespass to chattels claims.”

          13. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            So – this is what the Texas appeals court said about sovereign immunity that SCOTUS rejected on it’s face:

            ” Finally, Defendants argue they enjoy jurisdictional immunity under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). They are again mistaken. The INA bars lower courts from issuing injunctions against certain immigration statutes, specifically 8 U.S.C. §§ 1221–1232. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). That bar does not apply here, however. To cut Texas’s c-wire, Defendants did not rely on any of the statutes covered by the INA bar. Instead, they relied on 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(3) and 1357(a)(3), neither of which are covered. Accordingly, an injunction against the Defendants would, at most, have only a “collateral effect on the operation” of the covered statutes, which is permissible. See Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543, 553 n.4, 142 S.Ct. 2057, 213 L.Ed.2d 102 (2022).

            Having concluded Defendants do not enjoy sovereign immunity against Texas’s trespass to chattels claim, we briefly consider Texas’s likelihood of success on that claim. In its TRO, the district court concluded that Texas had a strong likelihood of success because “[1] the concertina wire is state property; [2] Defendants have exercised dominion over that property absent any kind of exigency; and [3] they have continued to do so even after being put on notice of [Texas’s] interest in the property.” On appeal, Texas reasserts its likelihood of success on that claim. Defendants do not brief this issue and have thus waived any argument. Bailey v. Shell W. E&P, Inc., 609 F.3d 710, 722 (5th Cir. 2010). We therefore agree with the district court that Texas has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its trespass to chattels claims.”

          14. Bedfordboy Avatar
            Bedfordboy

            La madre dei cretini è sempre incinta

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Read the CNN analysis, quite balanced for CNN. The next move is Biden’s and he is in a total box, since the public is infuriated by what is happening. Will Biden nationalize and take command of the Texas National Guard, as he could? If any issue can overcome the abortion headwind and elect Trump, this one can.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Oh, methinks you put too much emphasis on Biden’s next move over the next move of the House Republicans.

          Snatch defeat from the mouth of victory. Please. Do it.

          When you find yourself in agreement with Trump…

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then…

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Not a nice comparison for Steve.

          3. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Well that’s naive, the comparison was to Trump, not Steve.

        2. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Once the term “sanctuary cities” stopped being just virtue signaling, the support dried up that’s for sure.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    “ If, as Gov. Youngkin believes, a governor can defy the Supreme Court regarding immigration, what is to stop a future Democratic Virginia governor and legislature from ignoring Supreme Court rulings and enacting strict gun control measures on the grounds that the national government has broken its compact to ensure public safety?”

    Unfortunately, the guns in existence. A self-defeating prophecy?

    Welcome to lawlessness. Brought to you by the Law & Order Party.

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Trump will lose the top-ballot position. If the House follows his command dowsing the border bill, it will cost down-ballot elections as well.

    Yes, my GOP friends, listen to Trump and you will have Democrats in control for years. Don’t listen to Senator Lankford.

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Has Youngkin been hitting Trump’s Candyman…?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f87bc1f6c0f0bcd2bd5d9bd2c72d2a3f4e86c39bc02c58869abad53c65d4c859.jpg

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Ah, the WH pharmacy…. ‘Splains a lot about his administration.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Is Joe sharing his Adderall with Hunter?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          2019. You’ve made a common Republican error. Joe was self employed that year.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Was just thinking about the WH pharmacy you referred to, the current occupant and his family, one of whom has needed help to stay awake and his needy kid. It’s a caring parent who shares his scrip with his boy.

    2. CJBova Avatar
      CJBova

      What has 2019 and Northam got to do with Youngkin?

    3. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Now do Biden…

    4. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      “The directive to give medication, “including all controlled substances,” to patients’ representatives “without the need to present the patient’s ID card” was also found by investigators on a handwritten note dated March 21, 2014.”

      And who was president (and VP) in 2014?

      https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/24/health/white-house-medical-unit-report/index.html

      “The report is based on reviews of records from the White House Medical Unit, including prescriptions, from between 2017 and 2019.”

      Gosh, I wonder why those years were chosen?

      Maybe because more recent records would show a lot of Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine, and
      Memantine?

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Probably, the records that would be the most fun to review are those from the Clinton years…

    5. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Now do Biden…

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Weird… DJ getting info from CNN instead of FOX, Daily Wire

        … and NY POst reporting ONLY on Trumps abuses and not even a “what about” for Biden!

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cf84a9bc59b2a2a7d133fb46f8b6494207f41698711021926480017fc815ebab.png

        https://nypost.com/2024/01/25/news/white-house-pharmacy-under-trump-was-fast-and-loose-with-drugs-report-finds/

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I don’t think he’s been hitting Trump’s Candyman.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Agreed. I’m sure he has his own.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            There is an interesting dichotomy in reactions here – the Right’s response to this substance abuse disclosure in the White House (meh…) vs the Right’s response to the discovery of a bag of cocaine inside a public cubby near an entrance to the West Wing (execute Hunter!, launch Congressional investigations!, when will Secret Service arrests take place!?…)…

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            you noticed that also?

            😉

            yep.. if they can connect “Hunter” to WH drugs – JACKPOT!

  9. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I can name 3 presidents and 3 insubordinate generals, which I am confident is more than 90% of Americans can do.
    There is one thing from which even the most beloved general “shall not return”.

  10. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Here is what was written in the CNN article cited by Dick:

    “First, Abbott is not “essentially ignoring” the Supreme Court.”

    And here’s Dick’s editorial statement:

    “If, as Gov. Youngkin believes, a governor can defy the Supreme Court regarding immigration …”

    Hmmmm ….

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      well, full context:

      ” Abbott is not ignoring the Supreme Court
      WOLF: How does Abbott justify essentially ignoring the Supreme Court?

      VLADECK: It’s really important to stress that two different things are true: First, Abbott is not “essentially ignoring” the Supreme Court. Second, he is interfering with federal authority to a degree we haven’t seen from state officials since the desegregation cases of the 1950s and 1960s.

      With regard to the court, all that the justices did on Monday was to vacate a lower-court injunction, which had itself prohibited federal officials from cutting or otherwise removing razor wire that Texas officials have placed along or near the US-Mexico border.

      Nothing in Monday’s unexplained order stops Abbott from doing anything; it just means the federal government can’t be sanctioned by courts if it takes steps to remove those obstacles.

      Instead, the real issue here is that Abbott is deliberately impeding the ability of federal officials to act in and around Eagle Pass – in a way that isn’t in outright defiance of the Supreme Court (yet), but that is inconsistent with the supremacy of federal law.”

      https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/27/politics/texas-border-supreme-court-what-matters/index.html#:~:text=Abbott%20is%20not%20ignoring%20the%20Supreme%20Court&text=With%20regard%20to%20the%20court,near%20the%20US%2DMexico%20border.

      and Youngkin is onboard with this…… yes..

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      well, full context:

      ” Abbott is not ignoring the Supreme Court
      WOLF: How does Abbott justify essentially ignoring the Supreme Court?

      VLADECK: It’s really important to stress that two different things are true: First, Abbott is not “essentially ignoring” the Supreme Court. Second, he is interfering with federal authority to a degree we haven’t seen from state officials since the desegregation cases of the 1950s and 1960s.

      With regard to the court, all that the justices did on Monday was to vacate a lower-court injunction, which had itself prohibited federal officials from cutting or otherwise removing razor wire that Texas officials have placed along or near the US-Mexico border.

      Nothing in Monday’s unexplained order stops Abbott from doing anything; it just means the federal government can’t be sanctioned by courts if it takes steps to remove those obstacles.

      Instead, the real issue here is that Abbott is deliberately impeding the ability of federal officials to act in and around Eagle Pass – in a way that isn’t in outright defiance of the Supreme Court (yet), but that is inconsistent with the supremacy of federal law.”

      https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/27/politics/texas-border-supreme-court-what-matters/index.html#:~:text=Abbott%20is%20not%20ignoring%20the%20Supreme%20Court&text=With%20regard%20to%20the%20court,near%20the%20US%2DMexico%20border.

      and Youngkin is onboard with this…… yes..

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        The full context is that Dick is contradicted by CNN regarding whether Abbot ignored a US Supreme Court ruling.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          “Instead, the real issue here is that Abbott is deliberately impeding the ability of federal officials to act in and around Eagle Pass – in a way that isn’t in outright defiance of the Supreme Court (yet), but that is inconsistent with the supremacy of federal law”

          Are we arguing technical distinctions here?

          In the bigger context, is Abbot defying and interfering with the exclusive power of the US to control the border and Youngkin is agreeing with that?

          Dick said: ” “If, as Gov. Youngkin believes, a governor can defy the Supreme Court regarding immigration …”

          technically wrong but what Abbot IS doing is DEFYING the powers the Fed has with regard to the border AND doing so in a way that invites confrontation, conflict and potential violence.

          And Youngkin is onboard with this?

          And YOU are also onbord with it?

          Geeze.

        2. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          “Instead, the real issue here is that Abbott is deliberately impeding the ability of federal officials to act in and around Eagle Pass – in a way that isn’t in outright defiance of the Supreme Court (yet), but that is inconsistent with the supremacy of federal law”

          Are we arguing technical distinctions here?

          In the bigger context, is Abbot defying and interfering with the exclusive power of the US to control the border and Youngkin is agreeing with that?

          Dick said: ” “If, as Gov. Youngkin believes, a governor can defy the Supreme Court regarding immigration …”

          technically wrong but what Abbot IS doing is DEFYING the powers the Fed has with regard to the border AND doing so in a way that invites confrontation, conflict and potential violence.

          And Youngkin is onboard with this?

          And YOU are also onbord with it?

          Geeze.

          1. WayneS Avatar
            WayneS

            In the bigger context, is Abbot defying and interfering with the exclusive power of the US to control the border and Youngkin is agreeing with that?

            I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is is…

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I admit there is nuance in the words – but words do lead to actions and when the words essentially support the action – we DO KNOW the “meaning” IMO.

            And if we don’t we need to ask if Youngkin’s intent is to NOT make clear where he is on the issue.

            It would be easy to say, he supports the Constitutional authority of the Feds on immigration but we need changes but not the way Abbot is going about it.

        3. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          For we all know that CNN is the final arbiter…

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Neither CNN nor Dick Hall-Sizemore are the final arbiter.

            Just two differing opinions.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Agree but to me it’s clear where Youngkin took a stand.

            Trump basically has shown his true colors in terms of addressing the issue and in turn, empowering Abbot to continue.

            Trump, and the GOP elected in Congress including the GOP governors are actively opposing any attempts to actually address the problem.

            And we see here also, who supports that “wedge” issue.

            congrats.

          3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Correct.

    3. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      It’s almost as outlandish as his take on the nullifying the 2nd Amendment through similar means.

  11. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The quickest way to validate is to censor. What rule was violated? The painful truth rule.

  12. SudleySpr Avatar
    SudleySpr

    Texas can nullify the Supreme Court ruling on illegal immigrants! ‘Sanctuary cities’ and marijuana legalization opened the door

    https://lawenforcementtoday.com/texas-can-use-nullification-sanctuary-cities-and-marijuana-legalization-opened-the-door

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      List of fake news websites

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites

      Published fake news about police relations amid the George Floyd protests and source of Oregon fires, as well as material by QAnon supporters.[364

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Sanctuary cities had nothing to do with the Constitutions or the Supreme Court. In declaring itself a sanctuary, a locality was saying that it would not assist ICE in enforcing federal immigration law. State and local governments cannot impede federal authorities, but they are under no legal obligation to help them,either.

      As for marijuana legalization, how is that relevant to this topic?

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        I’ll bite. Marijuana is still very illegal at the federal level. Classified as a Schedule 1 drug. Other Schedule 1 drugs include heroin, LSD, PCP, and crack cocaine.

        A lot of states have legalized marijuana. Most states that decide to legalize marijuana (unlike Virginia) move quickly to make the retail sale of pot legal and regulated and taxed by the state. Maryland, for example.

        Aren’t the states that have legalized marijuana defying federal law? Doesn’t the Supremacy Clause say that when federal law conflicts with state law, the federal law prevails?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          No. Until SCOTUS says the states cannot make those laws because they are the constitutional exclusive power of the Feds…

          Like with abortion.

          And with other issues where both the Feds and the State can make laws on the same thing that differ.

          When the lawsuit claims the state cannot make those laws including on marijuana, makes it way to the SCOTUS who then rules that all State Laws on marijuana are unconstitutional and illegal.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            There are very few areas of criminal law that the courts have said are the exclusive jurisdiction of the feds.

        2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          Actually, no. The federal and state criminal laws are independent of each other. (That’s why someone can be tried twice for the same offense–once for violation of state law and once for violation of fedeal law.)
          Therefore, possession of a small amount of pot is not a violation of Virginia law, but is a violation of federal law. The feds could still arrest and prosecute.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            and one more thing…. do the Feds actively enforce that law?

            If I use pot, should I fear that the Feds will arrest me?

      2. SudleySpr Avatar
        SudleySpr

        They overrode the feds Remember? Focus, no friendly fire, sir.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          No, they didn’t. They just repealed the state law. The federal law is still effective.

      3. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        State and local governments cannot impede federal authorities, but they are under no legal obligation to help them, either.

        Do you support congress using what is essentially extortion – loss of federal funds – against states that refuse to help them enforce federal laws?

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          The Feds do have some leverage that “encourages” states to be helpful. Nice little state you’ve got there, be a shame if something bad happened to the money that supports it:)

  13. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “The authors of the U.S. Constitution made clear that in times like this, states have a right of self-defense, under Article 4, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution”

    Given that there were no immigration restrictions for the US when our Constitution was drafted, this is about the most daft statement Republicans have made to date. Clearly they did not wish to convey to NY that they should use these powers to unilaterally exclude immigrants from entering the US.

  14. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    The United States Constitution gives congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…”

    I understand why the governor and the people of Texas, as well as large numbers of people who are not from Texas, support Texas taking over control of the border with Mexico, and I sympathize with that position. However, the founders wanted congress to handle immigration, and they included such in our founding document. That is the basis for the federal government’s “supremacy” on this issue, and we have to live with that.

    However, Texas has some interesting arguments based in other sections of the constitution which they think justifies them stepping in to protect their state from our federal government’s incompetence. I hope some of them make it up through the courts – I think it’d be fun to watch.

  15. Rafaelo Avatar
    Rafaelo

    Sizemore’s ‘nullification’ comparison spot on. Theories of states rights be damned, federal Might Makes Right, starting in 1792:

    https://www.nationalguard.mil/Portals/31/Resources/Fact%20Sheets/Civil%20Disturbance%20Operations%20Fact%20Sheet%20(Nov%202020).pdf

  16. UVAPast Avatar
    UVAPast

    Is it close to time the government will order citizens to house illegal immigrants in their homes?

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Only if the GOP House doesn’t pass the Senate’s Bill…. The most comprehensive immigration bill ever.

      https://www.newson6.com/story/65b79c0f5b5ae4064d42f982/oklahoma-senator-shares-more-on-bi-partisan-immigration-reform-bill

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Only if the GOP House doesn’t pass the Senate’s Bill…. The most comprehensive immigration bill ever.

      https://www.newson6.com/story/65b79c0f5b5ae4064d42f982/oklahoma-senator-shares-more-on-bi-partisan-immigration-reform-bill

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Only if the GOP House doesn’t pass the Senate’s Bill…. The most comprehensive immigration bill ever.

      https://www.newson6.com/story/65b79c0f5b5ae4064d42f982/oklahoma-senator-shares-more-on-bi-partisan-immigration-reform-bill

    4. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Only if the GOP House doesn’t pass the Senate’s Bill…. The most comprehensive immigration bill ever.

      https://www.newson6.com/story/65b79c0f5b5ae4064d42f982/oklahoma-senator-shares-more-on-bi-partisan-immigration-reform-bill

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        This bill apparently means nothing to many GOP including those who insist they are not Trumpsters…they seem to be closet Trump supporters..

        Chaos is good!

        The GOP is no longer a party of principles like fiscal conservatism or law & order or even the Constitution…

        The “wedge” is what it is all about!

        If it puts a strongman in charge of the country, worth it!

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        This bill apparently means nothing to many GOP including those who insist they are not Trumpsters…they seem to be closet Trump supporters..

        Chaos is good!

        The GOP is no longer a party of principles like fiscal conservatism or law & order or even the Constitution…

        The “wedge” is what it is all about!

        If it puts a strongman in charge of the country, worth it!

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          This bill apparently means nothing to many GOP…

          What bill? Please either post a copy of the senate bill you are talking about or stop speculating on why some people might oppose it.

          If it’s already passed the senate then the text of the bill should be available.

          If it has not already passed the senate then you don’t know what is going to be in it.

      3. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Can you post a link to a copy of the senate bill in question, please. I am having a heck of a time trying to figure out exactly what is really included in it.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Give it a day. Personally, when Senator James Lankford (R-OK) says it’s the most comprehensive immigration bill, I believe him. But, when it is published, better read it quick.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Before it reaches the House and is DOA.

            Amazing that Bribem’s refusal to do a good thing is stopping 3 bad things, money for Ukraine, money for Israel, and money to antagonize China.

            I say stand firm Joe, continue to refuse to shut the border and thus stop all those other bad things from happening. Only in America, are we great or what?

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Before it reaches the House and is DOA.

            Amazing that Bribem’s refusal to do a good thing is stopping 3 bad things, money for Ukraine, money for Israel, and money to antagonize China.

            I say stand firm Joe, continue to refuse to shut the border and thus stop all those other bad things from happening. Only in America, are we great or what?

Leave a Reply

Read More