Now is the time in history to apply Justice Robert Jackson's famous dictum, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” The Constitution is valid except in situations where the Supreme Court has effectively declared an invasion of the border into Texas. our side. Since the courts and the Biden administration have gutted the Charter, Texas must ignore both, protect its people, and follow the Constitution.
Texas receives millions of people each year from 150 countries. Article 1, Section 10 of the agreement states: “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, impose tonnage duties, maintain armies or warships in time of peace, or engage in war. It is clearly stated that “No.” Unless there is an actual invasion or there is such immediate danger that delay cannot be tolerated.”
The Supreme Court's ruling on this motion has no persuasive force.
Given that cartels, drugs, violent criminals, and third-world masses raid cities like Eagle Pass every day, the scale of today's invasions is such that nations cannot fully employ ships and troops. It's bigger than any scenario our nation's founders had in mind when they hinted they could act. war.
Most certainly, under this scenario, Texas would be justified in taking purely defensive actions, such as building a razor wire fence that Border Patrol wants removed at the behest of cartels and smugglers. It will probably be done.
There is a conflict between two independent government units. The federal executive branch is facilitating the invasion of Texas in disregard of established law. The Texas executive branch (with support from Congress) hopes to erect a barrier and repel that invasion. Under these circumstances, Texas has the right to defend its territory by force. As future Chief Justice John Marshall said in a June 16, 1788 debate on the terms of the treaty, “This clearly proves that the states may use the militia if they think it necessary.” .
Remember, Gov. Greg Abbott established it in 2020. Checkpoint They tested people and enforced mandatory quarantines on the road from Louisiana into Texas as if Louisiana were the border. The federal government and courts had no problem with this. Suddenly, foreigners have more rights than Americans when it comes to invaders.
A federal district court has come and ruled that the Border Patrol has the right to remove razor wire fences on the banks of the Rio Grande in Texas. The Fifth Circuit blocked the judgment. And he said federal authorities cannot interfere with the Texas border wall in Eagle Pass. But on Monday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and three other liberals in temporarily reinstating the circuit court's ruling while the court considers the merits of the case.
Texas has merit and morals right. Mr. Abbott swore the same oath to the Constitution as Joe Biden and other Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is not supreme over other branches (only over lower courts).of constitution It's supreme. And if it is clear that Texas is adhering to a proper interpretation of the Constitution, its leaders must prevent the federal government from breaking down the barrier.
There's a reason the Founders didn't give the Supreme Court a police force.issues before the court opinion, are supposed to persuade other departments based on the quality of facts and analysis. This is why Hamilton said in Federalist 78 that the judiciary is the “least dangerous” branch because it “has neither coercion nor will.”
Eleventh Circuit Judge William Pryor (who would have ruled the case better than Barrett) Once explained, must earn respect for the Supreme Court. “Hamilton's point was that we must rely on the persuasive power of written opinions to earn the respect of our fellow citizens,” Pryor wrote in 2006. “In doing so, we have an overriding responsibility to protect our independence.”
In the midst of a dispute over the suspension of Abraham Lincoln's writ of habeas corpus during open rebellion, the attorney general Edward Bates He explained that each branch of government must exercise its powers in conjunction with what it perceives to be the law. Regardless of the Supreme Court. “That's the sum of [judicial] This power, Bates argued, is sufficient and efficient for all purposes of distributive justice between individual parties, but cannot impose rules of conduct or judgment on other sectors.
In this case, the Supreme Court's ruling on the petition has no persuasive force. And since he cannot prevent the Texas National Guard from building a barrier, Abbott can and must continue to thwart the invasion.
Although Texas is not a separate branch of the federal government, it is an independent state and must abide by the Constitution when it conflicts with the Supreme Court or other branches of government.
Although federal courts can decide individual criminal and civil cases, they cannot ultimately rule on other branches of government when there are clear disagreements over constitutional interpretation.as James Madison said: Near the end of his life, “each [department] When exercising the functions of the Constitution, each party must follow the provisions of the Constitution in accordance with its own interpretation of the Constitution. ”
Indeed, states are bound by the supremacy clause to obey “the laws of the United States.” However, this is only true if the law is enacted “in accordance with'' the Constitution. In this case, the High Court's decision not only strengthened the government's border policy; do not have They violate the laws of the United States as set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to the Constitution.
In one of his last speeches before his death, Justice Antonin Scalia asked his audience: “Do you think the American people would have ratified the Constitution if it said, “The meaning of this document shall be subject to the opinion of the majority of the Supreme Court?'' Does the court say that is so? ”
This question is no longer rhetorical.
