The Post & Email by William L. Kovacs 5/2/2024

Litigation between Texas and the United States over Texas’s right to defend itself by securing its border with Mexico from the onslaught of illegal immigration addresses momentous yet unexplored constitutional issues. Can Texas defend itself? Can the federal government force Texas to absorb the financial and social cost of illegal immigration?

While U.S. Supreme Court precedent finds these types of disputes non-justiciable political questions to be resolved by Congress, there is legal precedent under the Tenth Amendment that likely shifts the responsibility for and cost of illegal immigration from Texas to the federal government.

Has Texas been invaded? Texas hangs its cowboy hat on two provisions of the Constitution, Article I, section 10 (“Compacts clause“) and Article IV, section 4 (“Guarantee Clause”). The Compacts Clause prohibits states from engaging in war unless the state is invaded or “in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” The Guarantee Clause mandates that the United States guarantee each state a Republican form of government and “protect each of them [states] against invasion.

The keyword in both clauses is “invade,” or derivations of the term.

The few etymologists dissecting these terms conclude that millions of illegals entering the U.S. is not an invasion. A study by The Tenth Amendment Center traces the term from the first English dictionary in 1755 to the present. The term “invasion” has been consistently characterized as a foreign military power equipped with weapons intending to commit physical violence against another country. 

A Texas Public Policy Foundation study, “The Meaning of Invasion Under the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution” (2022), concluded that when the Constitution was drafted, the term “invade” involved two core concepts: entry and enmity (intent to act in armed conflict). The Foundation’s definition of invasion includes state and non-state warfare that seeks to “overthrow the lawful sovereignty of the state.” Under this reasoning, cartel activities could be an “invasion” if Texas can establish violent intent to challenge its sovereignty.

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/05/02/u-s-vs-tx-forget-invasion-its-the-tenth-amendment/

The issue isn’t Trump’s vice president choice. It doesn’t matter who he picks. It’s his policies that are scary

Some of his proposals and comments and parts of his record don’t go away because  of his vice president choice

His economic record as president wasn’t as great as his supporters like to claim. Obama supporters used to claim the same thing when it came to his economic record

Trump wants to take more control over the federal reserve in controlling interest rates. He wants to devalue our currency. He wants more more dangerous, protectionist tariffs. He wants to expand the federal government and the federal debt and a time that we’re already experiencing crushing inflation

And Trump, unlike his first run as president, won’t have the luxury of Low interest rates and relatively low inflation and easy money

And Trump so-called fantastic economic was already being downgraded before the pandemic.

Why do his supporters believe that Americans won’t be disgusted with his economic wrecking policies as they are with Biden’s?


What would follow a Trump reelection is an Elizabeth Warren type getting elected. Then we’d have some real problems


Until Trump admits the mistakes he made in his first term and start sounding like Javier Milei, I don’t care who he picks for vice president. But there’s no chance of that. This was a guy who had Tulsi Gabbard on his list for vice president


So we’re gonna be in for four more years of pain, regardless of who wins

Thanks, Pookie. Have a lovely weekend.

Texas Scorecard by  Brandon Waltens   | May 2, 2024

Even before the council meeting began, activists showed up outside city hall to voice their opposition.

AUSTIN—City Council Members have approved a resolution making the state’s capital a sanctuary for gender-mutilation procedures and chemical castration, though the actual effect of the move may be limited.

The resolution was sent to the council by the city’s LGBTQ Quality of Life Advisory Commission. It states that the policy of the city will be that no city personnel, funds, or resources will be used to investigate, criminally prosecute, or impose administrative penalties on gender-confused individuals seeking gender-mutilative procedures or an individual or organization attempting to assist the individual to receive the procedures.

Even before the council meeting began, activists showed up outside city hall to voice their opposition.

One of those activists was Soren Aldaco, a destransitioner who, as a minor, was given cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers. Shortly after her 19th birthday, she underwent a double mastectomy that nearly killed her.

Now, she has filed a lawsuit against doctors who allegedly pressured her into adopting a transgender identity beginning at the age of 15.

“After experiencing no dearth of complications related to these treatments, I chose to make peace with my sex instead of fighting it,” said Aldaco. “I now have filed one of the first lawsuits of its kind, designed to hold the practitioners who transitioned me accountable.”

Aldaco also noted that state law—the recently enacted Senate Bill 14—prohibits gender mutilative procedures from being performed on minors, making the city’s actions largely moot.

More: https://texasscorecard.com/local/austin-council-passes-resolution-making-the-city-a-sanctuary-for-child-gender-mutilation/

Topics merged