Biden’s lawsuit against Texas’ floating barrier fails to state an actionable harm.

[johnwk]

.
Biden’s COMPLAINT to have Gov. Abbott remove a floating barrier erected to help protect the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion of illegal entrant foreign nationals, drugs, and human trafficking, fails to identify the “commerce” being affected by said barrier.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (which is asserted to be violated) was adopted under Congress’ limited delegation of power to “regulate commerce”, and to ensure a “… unfettered waterborne commerce between the states, while allowing for the accommodation of local interests.” SOURCE

While the State of Texas has PROVIDED justifiable cause for the floating barrier, and that it is essential to protecting the general welfare of the good people of the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion of illegal entrant foreign nationals, the Biden complaint does not provide a shred of evidence showing the floating barrier has interfered with or disrupted any specifically mentioned commerce.

Since the complaint asserts a violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and that Act was adopted under Congress’ limited authority to “regulate commerce”, the complaint is facially flawed in that it mentions no hindrance of commerce.

On the other hand, the State of Texas has established good cause for the floating barrier, and likewise established the current Administrations’ blatant failure to protect the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion, which Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution commands the current Administration to honor.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[jillian]

.
Biden’s COMPLAINT to have Gov. Abbott remove a floating barrier erected to help protect the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion of illegal entrant foreign nationals, drugs, and human trafficking, fails to identify the “commerce” being affected by said barrier.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (which is asserted to be violated) was adopted under Congress’ limited delegation of power to “regulate commerce”, and to ensure a “… unfettered waterborne commerce between the states, while allowing for the accommodation of local interests.” SOURCE

While the State of Texas has PROVIDED justifiable cause for the floating barrier, and that it is essential to protecting the general welfare of the good people of the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion of illegal entrant foreign nationals, the Biden complaint does not provide a shred of evidence showing the floating barrier has interfered with or disrupted any specifically mentioned commerce.

Since the complaint asserts a violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and that Act was adopted under Congress’ limited authority to “regulate commerce”, the complaint is facially flawed in that it mentions no hindrance of commerce.

On the other hand, the State of Texas has established good cause for the floating barrier, and likewise established the current Administrations’ blatant failure to protect the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion, which Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution commands the current Administration to honor.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I guess that’s an opinion. Except that there is actual harm. So how bout we let real judges decide it.

Oh. And it isn’t illegal to seek asylum which we have an obligation to allow under the Geneva conventions.

Thanks for playing

 

[johnwk]

I guess that’s an opinion. Except that there is actual harm. So how bout we let real judges decide it.

The only interference the floating barrier has upon commerce is that of illegal immigration, drugs and human child trafficking for sex. None of which is mentioned in the complaint.

 

[Auld Phart]

I guess that’s an opinion. Except that there is actual harm. So how bout we let real judges decide it.

Oh. And it isn’t illegal to seek asylum which we have an obligation to allow under the Geneva conventions.

Thanks for playing

Oh. And it isn’t illegal to seek asylum which we have an obligation to allow under the Geneva conventions.

and there are authorized points for that type of entry.

I haven't seen any buoys blocking those authorized points, have you?

 

[Ralph Norton]

Except that there is actual harm.

And that would be what?

 

[bdtex]

I guess that’s an opinion.

It is indeed.

 

[Silent Warrior]

I guess that’s an opinion. Except that there is actual harm. So how bout we let real judges decide it.

Oh. And it isn’t illegal to seek asylum which we have an obligation to allow under the Geneva conventions.

Thanks for playing

True. Except that asylum seekers must cross at legal designated entry points, not swim a river in the middle of the night. Thanks for playing, albeit poorly.

 

[d0gbreath]

It's not the buoys. It's the heavy equipment in the river that's required to put them into place that blocks commerce on the river.

 

[johnwk]

It's not the buoys. It's the heavy equipment in the river that's required to put them into place that blocks commerce on the river.

What specific commerce is being blocked and mentioned in the complaint? Illegal immigration, drugs and human child trafficking for sex?

 

[Rawley]

I guess that’s an opinion. Except that there is actual harm. So how bout we let real judges decide it.

Oh. And it isn’t illegal to seek asylum which we have an obligation to allow under the Geneva conventions.

Thanks for playing

It is illegal to cross the border except at points of entry.

 

[petro]

The commerce of cheap labor must not be impeded.
Those lawns on Martha's Vineyard ain't gonna mow themselves.

 

[Augustine_]

.
Biden’s COMPLAINT to have Gov. Abbott remove a floating barrier erected to help protect the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion of illegal entrant foreign nationals, drugs, and human trafficking, fails to identify the “commerce” being affected by said barrier.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (which is asserted to be violated) was adopted under Congress’ limited delegation of power to “regulate commerce”, and to ensure a “… unfettered waterborne commerce between the states, while allowing for the accommodation of local interests.” SOURCE

While the State of Texas has PROVIDED justifiable cause for the floating barrier, and that it is essential to protecting the general welfare of the good people of the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion of illegal entrant foreign nationals, the Biden complaint does not provide a shred of evidence showing the floating barrier has interfered with or disrupted any specifically mentioned commerce.

Since the complaint asserts a violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and that Act was adopted under Congress’ limited authority to “regulate commerce”, the complaint is facially flawed in that it mentions no hindrance of commerce.

On the other hand, the State of Texas has established good cause for the floating barrier, and likewise established the current Administrations’ blatant failure to protect the State of Texas from an ongoing invasion, which Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution commands the current Administration to honor.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

I suspect the complete waste of taxpayer money on something with zero impact on illegal immigration but with the potential for damage to the ecosystem counts as harm

 

[LeftofLeft]

I guess that’s an opinion. Except that there is actual harm. So how bout we let real judges decide it.

Oh. And it isn’t illegal to seek asylum which we have an obligation to allow under the Geneva conventions.

Thanks for playing

Who is seeking asylum? Mexicans or others? If it is Mexicans, then your point about Geneva is valid. If it is others and they are going through Mexico, then it is Mexico’s responsibility.

Even if it is Mexicans seeking Asylum, nothing wrong with making them go through border crossings and not through the river.

Democrats continue to expose themselves regularly as proponents of open borders.

 

[d0gbreath]

What specific commerce is being blocked and mentioned in the complaint? Illegal immigration, drugs and human child trafficking for sex?

If they used a high-rise construction crane instead of driving dozers into the river, the trump flotilla could get their hats and flags through.

 

[Rawley]

and there are authorized points for that type of entry.

I haven't seen any buoys blocking those authorized points, have you?

Seems more than a few people have pointed this out to Jillian, but she seems to have run away.

It boggles my mind that the Biden administration would put all of these people at such great risk in the trek here, particularly women and children, simply on the hope to some day gain a voting population advantage. Talk about inhumane.

 

[excalibur]

and there are authorized points for that type of entry.

I haven't seen any buoys blocking those authorized points, have you?

She's here to troll, flame bait, and derail threads. One of a handful of such posters that mods refuse to smack down.

 

[johnwk]

The commerce of cheap labor must not be impeded.
Those lawns on Martha's Vineyard ain't gonna mow themselves.

And perverts won't get their imported adolescent sex slaves to fondle.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The same people bitching about Abbott trying to protect his state from illegal immigration are the first ones to scream when these immigrants are transported to their so-called “sanctuary” cities.

You people take full-of-shit to the next level.

 

[johnwk]

The same people bitching about Abbott trying to protect his state from illegal immigration are the first ones to scream when these immigrants are transported to their so-called “sanctuary” cities.

Come on man. We all know what the Biden COMPLAINT is really about. The "big guy" is pissed that the floating barrier is cutting into his ten percent kick-back for allowing Mexican Cartel commerce in drug and human trafficking.

 

[Arlette]

I guess that’s an opinion. Except that there is actual harm. So how bout we let real judges decide it.

Oh. And it isn’t illegal to seek asylum which we have an obligation to allow under the Geneva conventions.

Thanks for playing

It is. The construction of the barrier needed authorization from Congress. Texas didn't have the authority to put the barrier in the water.