The Briefing Room
State Chapters => Texas => Topic started by: corbe on January 23, 2024, 09:40:57 pm
-
Chip Roy delivers message to Supreme Court after ruling Biden administration can remove razor wire: ‘Go to hell’
By Eden Villalovas
January 23, 2024 1:11 pm
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) suggested Texas officials should defy a divided Supreme Court’s decision to allow Border Patrol agents to cut razor wire installed by the state on the U.S.-Mexico border.
In defense of the razor wire fence, which was installed to deter immigrants from entering the country, Roy said Texas has a “duty under the Constitution” to defend its border if the federal government fails to do so.
“They have a duty under the Constitution … and every other norm of leadership of any sovereign state, to protect your citizens, period, full stop,” Roy told Fox News on Tuesday. “There is no exception to that. And if the Supreme Court wants to ignore that truth, which a slim majority did, Texas still had the duty, Texas leaders still have the duty, to defend their people.
“It’s like, if someone’s breaking into your house, and the court says, ‘Oh, sorry, you can’t defend yourself,’ what do you tell the court?” Roy added. “You tell the court to go to hell, you defend yourself, and then figure it out later.”
<..snip..>
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/2812871/chip-roy-delivers-message-supreme-court-ruling-biden-administration-remove-razor-wire/ (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/2812871/chip-roy-delivers-message-supreme-court-ruling-biden-administration-remove-razor-wire/)
-
I guess were learning How much of the US Constitution overrides the Texas Constitution? :shrug:
-
I guess were learning How much of the US Constitution overrides the Texas Constitution? :shrug:
More like how much the SCOTUS overrides the US Constitution.
-
Texas is currently putting up MORE razor wire.
-
The FedGov per the Constitution has plenary power over the borders, and the Founders I don't think ever envisioned not wanting to enforce them.
So that leaves the question, if the FedGov vacates it's powers to enforce the border, do the States have the right to take up those powers?
That question I don't think has ever been answered or even asked in the Courts.
-
The FedGov per the Constitution has plenary power over the borders, and the Founders I don't think ever envisioned not wanting to enforce them.
So that leaves the question, if the FedGov vacates it's powers to enforce the border, do the States have the right to take up those powers?
That question I don't think has ever been answered or even asked in the Courts.
@Free Vulcan
PROBABLY not in the context of taking over feral obligations,but it IS a question that needs to be asked and answered in a public setting so we can all see "who comes out to play and what they say on this issue."
After all,if the feral gooberment fails to live up to it's obligations,isn't it the RIGHT of the people to step forward and take control?
After all THEY represent US,WE don't represent them. This is the same as saying they WORK for US,and WE are their bosses.
Anything less would mean we live under a dictatorship.
-
@Free Vulcan
PROBABLY not in the context of taking over feral obligations,but it IS a question that needs to be asked and answered in a public setting so we can all see "who comes out to play and what they say on this issue."
After all,if the feral gooberment fails to live up to it's obligations,isn't it the RIGHT of the people to step forward and take control?
After all THEY represent US,WE don't represent them. This is the same as saying they WORK for US,and WE are their bosses.
Anything less would mean we live under a dictatorship.
@sneakypete Agree. We have fairly defined legal concepts of vacating things like property, public office, contractual duties, etc., so it's not like the overall idea has never been litigated in a courtroom.
It's needs to be decided now, we can't sit and wait any longer while millions come over the border and drag the USA over the cliff.
-
Does the Texas National Guard have any F-16s?
-
Does the Texas National Guard have any F-16s?
They actually have a pretty good little air force if memory serves. I'll let some of the locals on the board chime in on that.
-
Yes, @rustynail the TANG 149th Fighter Wing does have F16's.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/182d_Fighter_Squadron_-_F-16s.jpg)
-
Vulcan sez:
"So that leaves the question, if the FedGov vacates it's powers to enforce the border, do the States have the right to take up those powers?"
I posted about that in this forum a number of months ago.
The question you asked is the one that should be asked before the Supreme Court.
The answer they provide may be as portentous as was Dredd Scott in 1857.
-
Vulcan sez:
"So that leaves the question, if the FedGov vacates it's powers to enforce the border, do the States have the right to take up those powers?"
I posted about that in this forum a number of months ago.
The question you asked is the one that should be asked before the Supreme Court.
The answer they provide may be as portentous as was Dredd Scott in 1857.
Cannot agree more. Along with Chevron, it's got to be the most pressing issue the country is facing. Lose or win it needs answered soon, so the States and Citizens know where they stand.
-
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s three liberals in supporting Biden’s request, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Well Well.... "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing" - O'Sullivans First Law: John O'Sullivan...
We expect Roberts to fold like a cheap deck of cards... but Ann was suppose to be conservative...
-
What separates Texas from most states in the Union is we were once a Republic.
-
We expect Roberts to fold like a cheap deck of cards... but Ann was suppose to be conservative...
I read in an article a year or two ago about the horse trading that goes on behind the scenes during SCOTUS deliberations. Roberts occasionally like to arrange "bi-partisan" split votes to quiet the criticism in exchange for "favor" votes later on certain issues that are important to individual justices. Therefore, SCOTUS is political just like the other two branches of government, and behaves accordingly.
-
Sighlass observes:
"We expect Roberts to fold like a cheap deck of cards... but Amy was suppose to be conservative..."
Remember that blank piece of paper she held up at her confirmation hearing?
Turns out she's just as "blank" when it comes down to the brass tacks.
One more reason why NO woman should sit on the Supreme Court.
Sorry if you don't like this post.
-
Keep sending the illegal migrant buses, trains, planes, boats, and zeppelins up North.
No razorwire on Massachusetts border.
-
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Maybe 5 of 9 justices don't recognize this, or this one: 9th Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Failing those, there is always: Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
It is not only NOT protecting the States against invasion, it is fostering that invasion.
Other contracts have been broken for less.