Will (& Should) Texas Go To War With the Biden USA ?

[protectionist]

Based on my reading I have no issue with the proposed bill you link to. Be that as it may, let’s get to work on what Is now on the table.

It;s NOT on the table.....DEAD ON ARRIVAL in the House.

 

[JLW]

Your thoughts are scattered all over the place. clearcontradiction.

You say you want Biden to be "tough on the border", yet you say you support the current SELLOUT border bill (which is as weak on the border as anything could be)

No, there is no contradiction. You call the border bill weak, others disagree with you. I don’t know why you would not support a bill that would toughen our immigration laws.

 

[protectionist]

Based on my reading I have no issue with the proposed bill you link to. Be that as it may, let’s get to work on what Is now on the table.

The only way you could have no issue with this, is if you support the invasion. Looks like you do.

 

[JLW]

It;s NOT on the table.....DEAD ON ARRIVAL in the House.

It is dead because Trump opposes it. He is wrong. I can understand the anger over the border, it needs to be dealt with. Start with the border bill. I know it is not what you fully want. As a wise man once sang, if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you‘re with.

 

[protectionist]

No, there is no contradiction. You call the border bill weak, others disagree with you. I don’t know why you would not support a bill that would toughen our immigration laws. It seems a no brained to me,

It WEAKENS the immigration law.

The bill that toughens it was HR 29 the Border safety & Security Bill which would have abolished asylum That is what needs to happen.

The asylum law and its loopholes, is what is luring millions of migrants (caravans) to the border.

 

[protectionist]

It is dead because Trump opposes it. He is wrong. I can understand the anger over the border, it needs to be dealt with. Start with the border bill. As a wise man once sang, if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one your with.

Trump is right - 100%

 

[JLW]

It was a pleasure discussing this with you, but I am going to bed. Have a good night.

 

[dudmuck]

I wrote an OP on the border bill listing it's points - all supporting the invasion.

Looks Like We Just Got Screwed on Immigration

I seem to recall a year ago a very good bill proposed by Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX), the H.R. 29: Border Safety and Security Act of 2023, which wou;d have stopped the asylum racket cold. I wonder what happened to it. Must have gotten shot down by Democrats in the Senate. Well, fast foward to...

www.politicaljack.com

that was for HR29, not Biden's border bill.

 

[protectionist]

that was for HR29, not Biden's border bill.

Wrong. Both bills were mentiond, but the OP was specifically talking about Bidens border bill. That is what we are "Screwed" by. Here;s part of the OP >>

Try reading this WHOLE OP, not just the first paragraph.

Looks Like We Just Got Screwed on Immigration

I seem to recall a year ago a very good bill proposed by Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX), the H.R. 29: Border Safety and Security Act of 2023, which wou;d have stopped the asylum racket cold. I wonder what happened to it. Must have gotten shot down by Democrats in the Senate. Well, fast foward to...

www.politicaljack.com

 

[HeyNorm]

It is dead because Trump opposes it. He is wrong. I can understand the anger over the border, it needs to be dealt with. Start with the border bill. I know it is not what you fully want. As a wise man once sang, if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you‘re with.

No, start with enforcing the border. Then we will talk.

 

[Stryder50]

Later, when I have time, I'll go through the 100+ posts here. I suspect none have used this tact, nor this legal approach.
First, the qualifications of the author;
Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). This series is based on his forthcoming research article co-authored with Andrew T. Hyman: “The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States” (pdf). It will appear early this year in Volume 13, Issue 1, of the British Journal of American Legal Studies.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
....
Now, the links to the series of articles. I'll do select excerpts later, but the titles and subtexts should be major clues. Especially for the many here whom don't know or understand the USA Constitution and various States Rights versus Federal.
..........
Part I

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part I​

This series summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—and particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings.
...

Conclusion​

The Constitution’s words “invaded” and “invasion” include unauthorized mass migration into the United States or into individual states. Unauthorized mass migration therefore triggers certain government powers and duties—state as well as federal. The following installments in this series will explain what those powers and duties are.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part I

This series summarizes state powers over immigration and military force—and particularly the power to respond to illegal border crossings.

www.theepochtimes.com

.........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II​

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

www.theepochtimes.com

..........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part III​

As part of our research into state war powers, my co-author, Andrew T. Hyman, and I examined the scope of “defensive war” as the Founders understood it.

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part III

As part of our research into state war powers, my co-author, Andrew T. Hyman, and I examined the scope of “defensive war” as the Founders understood it.

www.theepochtimes.com

.........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part IV​

This Part IV examines a particularly thorny problem: To what extent may the federal government interfere when states exercise their defensive war powers?

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part IV

This Part IV examines a particularly thorny problem: To what extent may the federal government interfere when states exercise their defensive war powers?

www.theepochtimes.com

........

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part V: About Birthright Citizenship​

This final part looks at the Constitution’s words “natural born Citizen” and the claim that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are “birthright citizens.”

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration, Part V: About Birthright Citizenship

This final part looks at the Constitution’s words “natural born Citizen” and the claim that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are “birthright citizens.”

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Stryder50]

Once one has gone through the above five article/links a couple of issues become clear.

I) By not doing anything significant, or more = all that he can, to enforce National Border Security Biden as failed his oath of office as POTUS. More to the point, his actions appear to be very close to treason since he is aiding and abetting invasion by foreign powers and interests, especially "enemies of humanity", into the USA and allowing them to undermine the Nation's economy and security.

At the least these are serious grounds for impeachment. More likely they are serious grounds for charges of treason and prosecution for same.

II) The Federal Government has no Power or Right to penalize States, such as Texas, for protecting their borders against foreign invasion and engaging prosecutions for same; especially when the Federal Government has shirked it's duty and failed to do the same.

III) While "The buck stops here" at the White House/Oval Office, that doesn't absolve other Agencies and Departments of the Federal Government from failure to perform their duties in securing the National Borders and dealing firmly and authoritatively in blocking and repelling foreign invaders. Hence many at the highest levels in those agencies/departments are also guilty of dereliction of duty related to crimes and felonies of omission in performance of their office and sworn duty.

IV) Unless the Federal Executive moves quickly and extensively to correct and address these failures and crimes regarding the foreign invasion of the USA, scores of heads are on the chopping block. Some literally, all figuratively.

 

[Stryder50]

It is dead because Trump opposes it. He is wrong. I can understand the anger over the border, it needs to be dealt with. Start with the border bill. I know it is not what you fully want. As a wise man once sang, if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you‘re with.

Another "border Bill" doesn't absolve anyone, especially POTUS, for failure of duty and oath to uphold and enforce existing laws on border security and immigration.

In fact, failure to obey oaths taken to defend and uphold the Constitution, and enforce existing laws regarding border protection and immigration go beyond "crimes and misdemeanors" (major serious cause for impeachment) and enter Treason in form of aiding and abetting the enemies of the USA.

Those whom support POTUS and the Federal government in these crimes are also guilty of those crimes and treasons.

 

[San Souci]

Texans aren't the ones crossing the river. For that reason, yes, the river should be filled with alligators.

Yes. Anything to keep these 3rd World Vermin out.

 

[Stryder50]

From Part II in he above post, #111, select excerpts;
...

Some Basic Principles​

War, borders, and foreign affairs are subjects of international law. The American Founders called international law the “law of nations.” For their background in the law of nations, the Founders relied on their own experience and on a handful of leading authors: the Dutch writer Hugo Grotius, the Swiss scholar Emer de Vattel, and others. Reading those authors today sheds light on the Constitution’s meaning and organization.

Founding-era “law of nations” books distinguished between offensive wars and defensive wars. A sovereign fought a just offensive war to seek compensation for injury or to deter an enemy from inflicting injury. (Wars for mere conquest were considered “unjust.”) A sovereign launching a just offensive war generally preceded it with a formal announcement called a declaration of war.

Sovereigns fought defensive wars to prevent injury. Examples were military responses to invasion and insurrection. Usually, a sovereign engaged in a defensive war wasn’t the first to strike. But if an invasion was imminent, a sovereign could launch a preemptive attack, and it still was considered defensive.
...

Federal War Powers​

The division between offensive and defensive warfare is baked into our Constitution. The division helps explain which military powers the Constitution granted the federal government and which military powers the states retained.

Under the Constitution, only the federal government may wage offensive war. Congress, therefore, may “declare War” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11).

The Constitution also grants the federal government power to wage defensive war. Article II, Section 3 directs the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This was the section that gave Abraham Lincoln the authority to commence military operations against the seceding Southern states.

Article IV, Section 4 says that “the United States shall ... protect each [state] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

This language means (1) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage defensive war against invasion (a duty the Biden administration is disregarding), and (2) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage war or undertake a police action against domestic violence, if an affected state demands that it do so.
...

State War Powers​

The Constitution didn’t transfer all sovereignty to the federal government. Some sovereignty—including some sovereign war powers—remained in the states. During the constitutional debates of 1787–1790, the Constitution’s advocates repeatedly explained this. State war power didn’t derive from the Constitution. It was part of the reservoir of sovereign authority retained by the states (“reserved”) after the document was ratified.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 limited these reserved state war powers, but also recognized them:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Let’s flip that language to an affirmative form:

“Any state may keep troops and ships of war in time of war, ... and engage in war ... if actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, states may wage defensive, but not offensive, war. Unlike the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), the Constitution imposed no limit on the armies or navies a state may raise during a time of war. (The states aren’t limited to their militias.) Unlike the Articles, the Constitution laid down no requirement that the war be congressionally declared and no restriction on the nature of the invasion. The only requirements imposed by the Constitution are that there be an actual invasion or an “imminent Danger” of one.
....

‘Enemies of the Human Race’​

During the 18th century, civilized nations were often disturbed by criminal gangs that recognized no sovereigns. Legal writers called these gangs hostes humani generis—a Latin phrase meaning “enemies of the human race.”

Enemies of the human race might operate on the sea, prey on shipping, and attack port towns. If so, they were called “pirates.” But enemies of the human race also included land-based gangs of thieves, deserters, poisoners, assassins, incendiaries, and (as the legal commentator William Blackstone characterized them) “unauthorized voluntiers [sic] in violence.”

The Constitution left the states with the power to conduct war against invasions launched by enemies of the human race. It also left the states with police power to respond to their criminal acts.
...
The attitudes of the founding generation against these malefactors were remorseless. As Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ favorite international law authority, wrote:

“If the justice of each nation ought in general to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed in its own territories; we ought to except from this rule, the villains, who by the quality and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all public security, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race. Poisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession, may be exterminated wherever they are seized ...”

Can you think of some “enemies of the human race” operating along our Southern border today?
...

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

www.theepochtimes.com

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). This series is based on his forthcoming research article co-authored with Andrew T. Hyman: “The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States.” It will appear early this year in Volume 13, Issue 1, of the British Journal of American Legal Studies.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

 

[SavannahMann]

From Part II in he above post, #111, select excerpts;
...

Some Basic Principles​

War, borders, and foreign affairs are subjects of international law. The American Founders called international law the “law of nations.” For their background in the law of nations, the Founders relied on their own experience and on a handful of leading authors: the Dutch writer Hugo Grotius, the Swiss scholar Emer de Vattel, and others. Reading those authors today sheds light on the Constitution’s meaning and organization.

Founding-era “law of nations” books distinguished between offensive wars and defensive wars. A sovereign fought a just offensive war to seek compensation for injury or to deter an enemy from inflicting injury. (Wars for mere conquest were considered “unjust.”) A sovereign launching a just offensive war generally preceded it with a formal announcement called a declaration of war.

Sovereigns fought defensive wars to prevent injury. Examples were military responses to invasion and insurrection. Usually, a sovereign engaged in a defensive war wasn’t the first to strike. But if an invasion was imminent, a sovereign could launch a preemptive attack, and it still was considered defensive.
...

Federal War Powers​

The division between offensive and defensive warfare is baked into our Constitution. The division helps explain which military powers the Constitution granted the federal government and which military powers the states retained.

Under the Constitution, only the federal government may wage offensive war. Congress, therefore, may “declare War” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11).

The Constitution also grants the federal government power to wage defensive war. Article II, Section 3 directs the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This was the section that gave Abraham Lincoln the authority to commence military operations against the seceding Southern states.

Article IV, Section 4 says that “the United States shall ... protect each [state] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

This language means (1) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage defensive war against invasion (a duty the Biden administration is disregarding), and (2) the federal government is empowered—and required—to wage war or undertake a police action against domestic violence, if an affected state demands that it do so.
...

State War Powers​

The Constitution didn’t transfer all sovereignty to the federal government. Some sovereignty—including some sovereign war powers—remained in the states. During the constitutional debates of 1787–1790, the Constitution’s advocates repeatedly explained this. State war power didn’t derive from the Constitution. It was part of the reservoir of sovereign authority retained by the states (“reserved”) after the document was ratified.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 limited these reserved state war powers, but also recognized them:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace ... or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

Let’s flip that language to an affirmative form:

“Any state may keep troops and ships of war in time of war, ... and engage in war ... if actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

In other words, states may wage defensive, but not offensive, war. Unlike the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), the Constitution imposed no limit on the armies or navies a state may raise during a time of war. (The states aren’t limited to their militias.) Unlike the Articles, the Constitution laid down no requirement that the war be congressionally declared and no restriction on the nature of the invasion. The only requirements imposed by the Constitution are that there be an actual invasion or an “imminent Danger” of one.
....

‘Enemies of the Human Race’​

During the 18th century, civilized nations were often disturbed by criminal gangs that recognized no sovereigns. Legal writers called these gangs hostes humani generis—a Latin phrase meaning “enemies of the human race.”

Enemies of the human race might operate on the sea, prey on shipping, and attack port towns. If so, they were called “pirates.” But enemies of the human race also included land-based gangs of thieves, deserters, poisoners, assassins, incendiaries, and (as the legal commentator William Blackstone characterized them) “unauthorized voluntiers [sic] in violence.”

The Constitution left the states with the power to conduct war against invasions launched by enemies of the human race. It also left the states with police power to respond to their criminal acts.
...
The attitudes of the founding generation against these malefactors were remorseless. As Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ favorite international law authority, wrote:

“If the justice of each nation ought in general to be confined to the punishment of crimes committed in its own territories; we ought to except from this rule, the villains, who by the quality and habitual frequency of their crimes, violate all public security, and declare themselves the enemies of the human race. Poisoners, assassins, and incendiaries by profession, may be exterminated wherever they are seized ...”

Can you think of some “enemies of the human race” operating along our Southern border today?
...

Understanding the Constitution: How States May Respond to Illegal Immigration—Part II

This part II explains federal and state responsibility in the face of invasion and introduces the topic of transnational criminal gangs.

www.theepochtimes.com

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor who is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver, authored “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant” (3rd ed., 2015). This series is based on his forthcoming research article co-authored with Andrew T. Hyman: “The Constitution, Invasion, Immigration, and the War Powers of States.” It will appear early this year in Volume 13, Issue 1, of the British Journal of American Legal Studies.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Sometimes I honestly wonder where people get some ideals. In this case, it is laughable.

The same conservatives who scream that Abortion isn’t specifically mentioned as protected in the Constitution, argue that the plain language of the Constitution doesn’t mean what it actually says.

I understand it though. It is technically called Bias Confirmation. That is the term to describe the event. Bias Confirmation. It means that you look for proof of your ideals and find the proof, most often where it doesn’t exist.

Children do this. They believe in Santa Claus for example. The proof is seeing him everywhere. The proof is under the tree on Christmas Morning.

Adults do this. Several aircraft accidents have happened because the pilot believed that what he was seeing meant one thing, and wouldn’t question his belief even as the plane slammed into the Earth.

Bias Confirmation. If you want to believe that the States have the right to do what they plainly don’t, you find the proof.

This fellow takes the plain language of the Constitution, and flips it on its head, demanding that we all recognize his unique interpretation. These are the same Conservatives who scream that there is no mention of Abortion in the Constitution so there is no right to one. Despite the fact that the practice of Abortion was common at the time the Constitution was written.

The problem is that true believers are impossible to debate. They will believe no matter what. Cult members rarely wake up and recognize their error. And the political spectrum is becoming filled with people who have cult like beliefs.

They can visit sites like this Epoch times and find confirmation for their radical ideals. Instead of accepting the ideals based in truth, they get confirmation of their bias without ever questioning the idiocy of their arguments.

Perhaps after the next world war, the people will get better. But if history is any indicator, we’ll just get dumber.

 

[Stryder50]

Sometimes I honestly wonder where people get some ideals. In this case, it is laughable.

The same conservatives who scream that Abortion isn’t specifically mentioned as protected in the Constitution, argue that the plain language of the Constitution doesn’t mean what it actually says.

I understand it though. It is technically called Bias Confirmation. That is the term to describe the event. Bias Confirmation. It means that you look for proof of your ideals and find the proof, most often where it doesn’t exist.

Children do this. They believe in Santa Claus for example. The proof is seeing him everywhere. The proof is under the tree on Christmas Morning.

Adults do this. Several aircraft accidents have happened because the pilot believed that what he was seeing meant one thing, and wouldn’t question his belief even as the plane slammed into the Earth.

Bias Confirmation. If you want to believe that the States have the right to do what they plainly don’t, you find the proof.

This fellow takes the plain language of the Constitution, and flips it on its head, demanding that we all recognize his unique interpretation. These are the same Conservatives who scream that there is no mention of Abortion in the Constitution so there is no right to one. Despite the fact that the practice of Abortion was common at the time the Constitution was written.

The problem is that true believers are impossible to debate. They will believe no matter what. Cult members rarely wake up and recognize their error. And the political spectrum is becoming filled with people who have cult like beliefs.

They can visit sites like this Epoch times and find confirmation for their radical ideals. Instead of accepting the ideals based in truth, they get confirmation of their bias without ever questioning the idiocy of their arguments.

Perhaps after the next world war, the people will get better. But if history is any indicator, we’ll just get dumber.

True believer Cult is more common on the Left, Komrade. Which is why you Leftist are like a pack of baying dogs. Bias confirmation comes from the Left leaning MSM which has become the USA Pravda.

Epoch Times is one of the few objective sources for real news. Granted, most of the opinion~Op-Ed leans to the Right, which makes it refreshing breath of clean air.

To understand the Constitution one needs to understand language usage of the era AND read what was written by the Founders out side of that document. It's called context.

Natelson is far more learned on the Constitution than you are. I see little value in your Left leaning prejudice views.

 

[SavannahMann]

True believer Cult is more common on the Left, Komrade. Which is why you Leftist are like a pack of baying dogs. Bias confirmation comes from the Left leaning MSM which has become the USA Pravda.

Epoch Times is one of the few objective sources for real news. Granted, most of the opinion~Op-Ed leans to the Right, which makes it refreshing breath of clean air.

To understand the Constitution one needs to understand language usage of the era AND read what was written by the Founders out side of that document. It's called context.

Natelson is far more learned on the Constitution than you are. I see little value in your Left leaning prejudice views.

You want to see it. You don’t want to be wrong. That is the definition of confirmation bias.

 

[HeyNorm]

Sure it is. You want to tell the liberals to fuck off. You want to teach them a lesson. You want to stand on them while they die. So do it.

Look at what’s happening in NYC and Chicago with only a few thousand illegals sucking up resources. You’re already starting to eat your own.

 

[Mac-7]

When Wallace blocked school access to black students, the National Guard was called in.

I dont biden wants more publicity for his failed border policy

He wants repubs to at least share some of the blame