Earlier this week, “Civil War” was trending on social media following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn a lower court's injunction in the border security case Texas v. the Biden Administration.
The injunction temporarily prohibits the federal government from removing bellows wire deployed by the Texas National Guard, which seeks to secure the border under the direction of Gov. Greg Abbott. In response to the court's decision, Mr. Abbott released a letter boldly proclaiming Texas' right to protect Texas from the ongoing border invasion and saying the National Guard would continue its mission.
Much of the media has portrayed Mr. Abbott as defying the Supreme Court, but lifting the injunction is not.
legally prevent Prevent the Texas National Guard from continuing to place obstacles along the border, as Abbott has vowed. The federal government is no longer prohibited from removing obstructions, as was the policy prior to the injunction. The legal status of Texas' border deployment will have to wait for an actual ruling on the case itself.
This hasn't stopped Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), from moving forward.
from request Biden says he will federalize the Texas National Guard to take away the state's defense capabilities.
others have
compared Abbott's efforts to uphold the law against desegregation by southern governors in the 1960s.
This comparison is more than just a slander. There's a legal element to it. To federalize the Texas National Guard (and activate other federal forces), Biden would need to invoke the Insurrection Act, but this is only possible in limited legal circumstances, and the U.S. Code It cites one of three separate provisions of the law found in Title 10. Sections 331, 332, and 333.
Section 331 requires the approval of the state legislature or governor if a state requests assistance in suppressing a rebellion against state authorities. Not applicable in this case.
The idea that “no human being is an illegal offender” and therefore has the right to enter a country is at the heart of the left's open borders policy.
Section 332 provides that the President may “invoke the Insurrection Act and, without the request of the Legislatures of any State, shall summon the National Guard if he determines that such action is impracticable due to unlawful obstruction, association, assembly, or insurrection against the authority of the United States.” may be federalized.” To enforce the laws of the United States in any state pursuant to normal judicial process. ”
President Biden may try to cite this passage to argue that Mr. Abbott is committing unlawful obstruction, but the lawsuit is still ongoing and the White House is unlikely to claim that the judicial process is invalid. It seems unlikely that a claim can be made. Use of this provision is further complicated by the fact that Mr. Biden is seeking to implement an open border policy, as Mr. Abbott argues in his letter. This policy violates the federal government's constitutional responsibility to protect the states. The allegation that Texas engages in sabotage puts a spotlight on the Biden administration's failure to enforce current federal immigration laws.
This leaves Section 333 of Title 10, which allows the president to authorize the President if “any part or class of the people” is “deprived of any right, privilege, immunity, or protection enshrined in the Constitution or guaranteed by law.” Allows states to organize their National Guard into a federal organization. If “the constituent authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to confer protection on its rights, privileges, and immunities.”
Section 333 originally came from the Civil Rights Act of 1871, known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” and was created by then-President Ulysses S. Grant to block newly freed black citizens. Authorized the use of the military to suppress violent Klan plots. vote. Despite concerns about the law's constitutionality at the time it was passed, it was revived by the courts in the 1960s to enforce civil rights statutes and was eventually incorporated into the Insurrection Act. become.
In this case, Biden has no choice but to argue that illegal aliens are “part of the nation,” that is, Americans and citizens of Texas, and that illegal border crossing is “a right named in the Constitution and guaranteed by law.” You won't get any. ” Although legally farcical, the idea that “no human being is an illegal offender” and therefore has a right to enter the country is at the heart of the left's open borders policy. Therefore, we cannot ignore the idea that Biden might be convinced to go ahead with such a plan because the ideological logic of the left inherently demands it.
Opposing such an effort would likely come from the Pentagon's National Guard Bureau, and this flimsy argument would need to be weighed against the fact that the National Guard has not been federalized in over 60 years, despite state opposition. There will be.
As generals nervously watch the U.S. military's recruitment surge, they may be less willing to enter into such a fight, especially if the perspective of flocking military-age men to the border is less appealing than the image of the U.S. military. One might imagine that some people would not want to participate. Protecting a female student from an angry racist.
The continued promotion of leftist “woke” ideology within the U.S. Army Chiefs of Staff means we are not entirely sure where the Pentagon stands, but bureaucratic inertia alone But it may be enough for the military chiefs to dissuade President Biden.
Still, the growing constitutional crisis is real, and the left's willingness to jump right into the jugular by demanding federalization of the Texas National Guard must be treated with the utmost seriousness.
To further prevent the Biden administration from escalating the crisis, red state governors told the Adjutant General that the Adjutant General Corps Association and the National Guard Association would lobby the National Guard Bureau to discourage and publicly downplay such incidents. We should urge them to use all their influence to take action. Biden administration initiatives.
State attorneys general reviewed a joint letter upholding Abbott's authority as commander of the Texas National Guard and said any attempt by Biden to federalize the Guard in this case would be a serious violation of his authority. It should be made clear. The House should pass a resolution supporting Abbott's declaration that Texas faces invasion and affirming his right to use the Texas Military Department to resist it.
A strong message publicly condemning the plan to federalize the National Guard is needed to de-escalate tensions and prevent the Biden administration from making mistakes that could have dire unintended consequences.
