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

[johnwk]

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

The barrier would have to obstruct existing commerce to be an issue with Congress' limited power to regulate commerce. The only commerce being affected by the barrier is that of Mexican Cartels' drug and human trafficking. And, nowhere in the "complaint" is that objected to.

 

[Arlette]

The barrier would have to obstruct existing commerce to be an issue with Congress' limited power to regulate commerce. The only commerce being affected by the barrier is that of Mexican Cartels' drug and human trafficking. And, nowhere in the "complaint" is that objected to.

No. The construction for any reason needs authorization from Congress

 

[22lcidw]

No. The construction for any reason needs authorization from Congress

It si clear that there are traitorous moles in our government that are destroying the United States of America. Power and money overrule real patriotism in dying empires as the number of people involved grow and grow.

 

[johnwk]

No. The construction for any reason needs authorization from Congress

Not according to our Constitution. See the Tenth Amendment

 

[Arlette]

Not according to our Constitution. See the Tenth Amendment

But according to the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899

Next

 

[johnwk]

But according to the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899

But not our Constitution which defines and limits the federal government's powers.

 

[Arlette]

But not our Constitution which defines and limits the federal government's powers.

Abbott can tell em all about it in court. Personally I think that Abbott wanted to get sued, to reenforce the lie that Biden promotes open borders. That's the whole point here because the law is clearly on the side of the DoJ.

 

[johnwk]

Abbott can tell em all about it in court. Personally I think that Abbott wanted to get sued, to reenforce the lie that Biden promotes open borders. That's the whole point here because the law is clearly on the side of the DoJ.

If the law is on the "side of the Doj as you assert, then why are you unable to defend that position?

 

[Arlette]

If the law is on the "side of the Doj as you assert, then why are you unable to defend that position?

I did. Numerous times. The DoJ case rests on the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act. The Act leaves no wiggle room for Abbott. The construction of the river barrier needed congressional authorization.
I accuse Abbott of knowing that all along.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Biden needs all the illegals to cross so he can get their votes.

 

[johnwk]

I did. Numerous times. The DoJ case rests on the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act.

A legislative Act of Congress may not usurp, and exercise powers not authorized by our written Constitution, or its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

The Biden Administration is asserting the State of Texas is in violation of section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403. Let us keep in mind the Act in question is alleged to be authorized and in pursuance of Congress’ authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations . . .” But the authority granted to Congress to “… regulate commerce with foreign nations . . .” was never intended to, nor does its text remotely suggest, the State of Texas is forbidden by the power granted to protect its immediate and adjoining water ways from a flood of unwanted foreign nationals invading its borders.

SO, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR GRANTING CONGRESS REGULATORY POWER OVER COMMERCE ?

One purpose for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states is found in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

A primary intention for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted to Congress was to guarantee free trade among the States and this is documented in Federalist Paper No. 42:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

The power to regulate commerce among the states was in fact intended to prevent one state from taxing another State’s goods as they passed through its borders or interfering with the movement of such goods.

Additionally, as previously pointed out, the power to regulate commerce also grants an oversight to Congress in a specific and clearly identified area__ a State‘s inspection laws:

“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

It is sheer insanity, or an intentional act of tyranny, to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question, to be delegating authority to Congress to subjugate the various States’ original authority to protect their borders from an unwanted invasion of foreign nationals. The power delegated to Congress to regulate commerce has been so distorted and abused over the years, that it is time for our Supreme Court to expound upon the intended and limited authority agreed to by the States and people therein, who gave their consent to the clause in question.

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

 

[johnwk]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Tells Fox He Won’t Stop Fighting Biden Lawsuit​

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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

Ohh yes they are

Why mission RTKn - Large lawn - Kress

Why mission RTKn - Large lawn - Kress

www.kress.com

 

[Independentthinker]

.
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)

Just another example of Biden trying to get away with more power than he has. This is example number 2,332.

 

[johnwk]

Just another example of Biden trying to get away with more power than he has. This is example number 2,332.

It is absolutely sickening what the Democrat Party Leadership is doing to our country with regard to not protecting our southern border. And the millions of illegal entrant foreign nationals allowed to enter are having a devastating effect on our public schools, emergency rooms and public housing, which they are overwhelming with their numbers, while American citizens and their children are suffering the consequences.

JWK

If the Chinese Communist Party leadership promises to forgive student loans, would any American citizen vote for a Communist Party Leadership?

 

[scruffy]

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

BULLSHIT.

The Constitution says Texas not only has the authority, but FedGov has to pay for it.

 

[scruffy]

No. The construction for any reason needs authorization from Congress

BULLSHIT.

The state of Texas is being INVADED by illegal immigrants and Congress is REQUIRED BY LAW to come to its assistance.

 

[johnwk]

BULLSHIT.

The state of Texas is being INVADED by illegal immigrants and Congress is REQUIRED BY LAW to come to its assistance.

.
The Biden Administration vs the State of Texas __ a summary of the floating barrier case

.
Keep in mind that nowhere in the Biden Administrations' COMPLAINT file with the court, does it point to a provision in the federal Constitution under which the Biden Administration is acting and has been violated by the State of Texas.


The complaint references "VIOLATION OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT" which is an act adopted under Congress' power "to regulate commerce". So, the real question is, what commerce has/or is, being obstructed by the State of Texas which has erected a floating barrier to protect the State of Texas and its good citizens from a massive and ongoing illegal, human and adolescent sex trafficking into the State of Texas, in addition to deadly drugs ___ all of which the State of Texas has an absolute authority to prohibit being trafficked into the State?

On the other hand, 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, deadly drugs, and human trafficking of children used as sex slaves.

Additionally, the State of Texas contends the Biden Administration has been recklessly negligent and refused for years, to be obedient to Article IV, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution and other laws of the United States, and that such violations have led to a crisis in the State of Texas of "...imminent Danger as will not admit of delay..." compelling Texas to invoke the powers reserved in Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which represents “an acknowledgement of the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.”

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

 

[johnwk]

BULLSHIT.

The Constitution says Texas not only has the authority, but FedGov has to pay for it.

Reimburse may be a better word. But I ageee.

Having said that, is it not a fact (with regard to the United States vs the State of Texas floating barrier case) that the State of Texas can invoke Rule 201, “judicial notice”, establish the DOJs’ Complaint originates under Congress’ power to “regulate commerce”, and then proceed to require the DOJ establish to the Court what commerce has been disrupted by the floating barrier erected by the State of Texas, under Article I, § 10, Clause 3, and done so to protect the general welfare of the State of Texas and its citizens?

JWK

“The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void”. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, 1858.

 

[johnwk]

I just checked to see if any further movement has occurred in the case United States vs Abbott

Nothing substantial since Jul 29, 2023.

Those interested in following the case may CHECK HERE for updates.

.

I just can’t understand why the Biden Administration is so intent on flooding the United States, with the poverty-stricken populations of other countries.

JWK

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion