Right on cue Biden's DOJ plans to sue Texas's attempt to slow border invasion

[struth]

Have a ball.

Essentially it boils down to navigatable waters.

Complaint – #1 in United States v. Abbott (W.D. Tex., 1:23-cv-00853) – CourtListener.com

COMPLAINT (Filing fee $ 402.), filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit U.S Army Corps of Engineers Navigable Waters List, # 2 Exhibit U.S. Coast Guard Navigability Determination, # 3 Exhibit U.S. Coast Guard Authentication Declaration, # 4 Exhibit U.S. Customs and Border...

www.courtlistener.com

Interesting, so it depends greatly on what was built here and where....that only requires approval by the Army if whatever is built impacts course, location, condition, or physical capacity of the water. Obviously, a fence wouldn't change the course, location or physical capacity of the river, the question would be does it change the "condition" and what "condition" means. Geez, I never got permission from them when I built a dock at the lake house....

 

[Catsnmeters]

Interesting, so it depends greatly on what was built here and where....that only requires approval by the Army if whatever is built impacts course, location, condition, or physical capacity of the water. Obviously, a fence wouldn't change the course, location or physical capacity of the river, the question would be does it change the "condition" and what "condition" means. Geez, I never got permission from them when I built a dock at the lake house....

Unfortunately I am one of the few people on these boards who is not a lawyer or legal scholar but abbot will have his day in court...and it doesn't look good.

The river doesn't belong to Texas.

 

[johnwk]

Unfortunately I am one of the few people on these boards who is not a lawyer or legal scholar but abbot will have his day in court...and it doesn't look good.

The river doesn't belong to Texas.

What “commerce” is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Gov. Abbot?​

Just for the record, the constitutional authority for adopting the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (which Biden asserts is being violated by Gov. Abbot) is Congress’ delegated power to regulate commerce, and its legislative intent was to insure an “… unfettered waterborne commerce between the states, while allowing for the accommodation of local interests.” SOURCE

And just what commerce is taking place in the Rio Grande waterway that is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Texas? In order for Gov. Abbot to comply with Biden’s objections, Gov. Abbot needs to have Biden identify exactly what commerce is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Texas other than the Mexican Cartel’s drug, human trafficking, and slave trade commerce into the United States, so he may comply with the legislative intent of the “Rivers and Harbors Act” of 1899, and not interfere with such commerce.

It’s as simple as that. Put up or shut up Biden.

JWK

 

[Catsnmeters]

What “commerce” is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Gov. Abbot?​

Just for the record, the constitutional authority for adopting the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (which Biden asserts is being violated by Gov. Abbot) is Congress’ delegated power to regulate commerce, and its legislative intent was to insure an “… unfettered waterborne commerce between the states, while allowing for the accommodation of local interests.” SOURCE

And just what commerce is taking place in the Rio Grande waterway that is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Texas? In order for Gov. Abbot to comply with Biden’s objections, Gov. Abbot needs to have Biden identify exactly what commerce is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Texas other than the Mexican Cartel’s drug, human trafficking, and slave trade commerce into the United States, so he may comply with the legislative intent of the “Rivers and Harbors Act” of 1899, and not interfere with such commerce.

It’s as simple as that. Put up or shut up Biden.

JWK

I don't believe Biden needs to justify anything except that the Rio Grand does not belong to the state of Texas.

That should be easy.

 

[johnwk]

I don't believe Biden needs to justify anything except that the Rio Grand does not belong to the state of Texas.

That should be easy.

"Ownership" of the Rio Grande will not be an issue in the case, if one develops.

 

[Catsnmeters]

"Ownership" of the Rio Grande will not be an issue in the case, if one develops.

Maybe...but navigable certainly will be.

 

[johnwk]

Maybe...but navigable certainly will be.

See: What “commerce” is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Gov. Abbot?

 

[struth]

Unfortunately I am one of the few people on these boards who is not a lawyer or legal scholar but abbot will have his day in court...and it doesn't look good.

The river doesn't belong to Texas.

Haha of course the river doesn’t belong to the state or the federal govt. The law your cited doesn’t say it belongs to the federal govt…it gives them authority to regulate

 

[Catsnmeters]

See: What “commerce” is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Gov. Abbot?

"Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce."

Federal Register :: Request Access

It doesn't seem that navigable waters are subject to immediate or present commerce but instead could be based on potential or past commerce.

 

[johnwk]

"Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce."

Federal Register :: Request Access

It doesn't seem that navigable waters are subject to immediate or present commerce but instead could be based on potential or past commerce.

You never identified what “commerce” is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Gov. Abbott and is subject to Congress' regulatory power. Keep in mind the Rivers and Harbors Act was enacted pursuant Congress' power to regulate commerce.

Could the floating barrier be interfering with the Mexican Cartel’s drug, human trafficking, and slave trade commerce into the United States, and is what Biden intends to protect?

 

[johnwk]

RE: Gov. Greg Abbott’s letter to Biden regarding Texas’ Authority to Secure the Border​

.
SEE: Gov. Greg Abbott’s letter to Biden

 

[Catsnmeters]

You never identified what “commerce” is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Gov. Abbott and is subject to Congress' regulatory power. Keep in mind the Rivers and Harbors Act was enacted pursuant Congress' power to regulate commerce.

I don't have too. It doesn't matter according to the definition.

Congress can change the law then. Until then it is navigable waters.

Could the floating barrier be interfering with the Mexican Cartel’s drug, human trafficking, and slave trade commerce into the United States, and is what Biden intends to protect?

No, that is what Congress protects.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk said:
You never identified what “commerce” is being hindered by the floating barrier installed by Gov. Abbott and is subject to Congress' regulatory power. Keep in mind the Rivers and Harbors Act was enacted pursuant Congress' power to regulate commerce.

I don't have too. It doesn't matter according to the definition.

The definition of "commerce" most certainly does matter because that is what Congress is authorized by our Constitution to "regulate".

JWK

"Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles." ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

 

[Catsnmeters]

The definition of "commerce" most certainly does matter because that is what Congress is authorized by our Constitution to "regulate".

JWK

"Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles." ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

It doesn't have to be presently hindered and it doesn't have to be specific or defined.

Read the definition of navigable waters again. Past, present or future.

If Congress decides that the Rio Grande will never have commerce again, then they can revoke navigable status. I will be fine with that.

 

[struth]

The definition of "commerce" most certainly does matter because that is what Congress is authorized by our Constitution to "regulate".

JWK

"Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles." ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

The federal govt certainly has the authority to regulate rivers under the commerce clause

Products are certainly trafficked via rivers

 

[johnwk]

It doesn't have to be presently hindered and it doesn't have to be specific or defined.

Read the definition of navigable waters again. Past, present or future.

If Congress decides that the Rio Grande will never have commerce again, then they can revoke navigable status. I will be fine with that.

The only thing you are correct on is, you have no legal background.

 

[johnwk]

The federal govt certainly has the authority to regulate rivers under the commerce clause

Products are certainly trafficked via rivers

Congress has delegated power to regulate that which affects commerce.

JWK

"Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles." ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

 

[struth]

Congress has delegated power to regulate that which affects commerce.

JWK

"Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles." ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

yes, it's right there in the Constitution, Art 1 Sect 8. hence why they can regulate the waterways

 

[Catsnmeters]

The only thing you are correct on is, you have no legal background.

Yep. Like I said, it puts me at a disadvantage here since everyone else is a legal expert.

How can I possibly hope to debate someone who has more knowledge of federal law then the combined recourses of the DoJ?

Give Abbot a call. He is going to need you.

 

[Catsnmeters]

"Ownership" of the Rio Grande will not be an issue in the case, if one develops.

I will be watching this thread somewhere else.

Should be interesting.