Post by The Resister on Jan 27, 2024 5:45:04 GMT
As all of you know this 27th day of January 2024 we are sitting on a powder keg. In Texas, Gov. Abbott is challenging the constitutionality of the feds telling him he cannot secure the Texas border.
As L.A. Knight would say, "Let me talk to you." For the last two and a half decades I have been telling those on the right that they cannot prevail on arguing that the foreigners coming here constitute an invasion. What do the lawyers say?
"But with Republicans of late employing the term “invasion” to characterize the movement of immigrants and goods into the country, Abbott appears to be forcing a confrontation with the White House and the federal government.
“For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion,” he wrote, “to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.”
Many constitutional scholars say Abbott’s legal footing is shaky.
“The argument that Abbott is seeking to make – that immigration across the border constitutes an act of invasion – is a very broad interpretation of the word invasion,” says Bertrall Ross, law professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy. “It’s more in line with the rhetoric of our politics than with what the founders had in mind.”
In fact, he notes, James Madison dedicated part of his “Report of 1800” to specifically note that illegal immigration is not a form of invasion.
“I don’t know how serious Texas is about litigating this,” he says. “The legal claims seem extraordinarily weak.”
www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/abbott-escalates-border-dispute-from-political-crisis-to-constitutional-crisis/ar-BB1hkbiT?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d0087d5eda3649bb9075a8be26eaacd6&ei=30
I told you so. My self appointed biographer comes here on a regular basis. Now, he has to live with the FACT that I told you so and he wasted his life telling people what a dumb ass he thought I was. An invasion, by legal definition is when:
"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder[/b]." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395.?
thelawdictionary.org/?s=invasion
The real deal is that I want Gov. Abbott to prevail. But, in order to do that he has to understand the law.
Prior to 1876 immigration was a STATE issue. Then, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over immigration to the federal government. The high Court was critical of the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco in California for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case. I've read the Constitution forwards, backward and can cite most of it off the top of my head. I have not found any section that gives the United States Supreme Court any authority to anyone or any branch of government to grant any powers, plenary or otherwise. If you disagree, please cite that section. What I'm saying is that the feds have control over immigration only because California lost by default. I think it's time to revisit that issue and get the United States Supreme Court to reinterpret the law, legislate from the bench and save the right from losing a lot of time only to be told by the courts that Abbott is full of crap if he persists in a failed legal strategy.
Each state decides who qualifies to vote. Each state decides who qualifies for a driver's license (which is de facto National ID.) It only stands to reason that each state decides who should be able to immigrate there. When the feds start deciding the issue, it gets into racial quotas, selective immigration classes (that discriminate against Whites), etc. I want Abbott to win, but I've been warning for two and half decades that the right NOT hang their hat on calling the foreigners "invaders." It doesn't fit the legal language and it will not fly in the courts. Having said that, I will still back Abbott should this escalate into a showdown. If you live in Texas or know the governor, I'm a text, phone call or e mail away. I will travel on my own dime and stand with Texans. I will be part of the civilian militia as long as I remain able bodied. You?
As L.A. Knight would say, "Let me talk to you." For the last two and a half decades I have been telling those on the right that they cannot prevail on arguing that the foreigners coming here constitute an invasion. What do the lawyers say?
"But with Republicans of late employing the term “invasion” to characterize the movement of immigrants and goods into the country, Abbott appears to be forcing a confrontation with the White House and the federal government.
“For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion,” he wrote, “to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.”
Many constitutional scholars say Abbott’s legal footing is shaky.
“The argument that Abbott is seeking to make – that immigration across the border constitutes an act of invasion – is a very broad interpretation of the word invasion,” says Bertrall Ross, law professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy. “It’s more in line with the rhetoric of our politics than with what the founders had in mind.”
In fact, he notes, James Madison dedicated part of his “Report of 1800” to specifically note that illegal immigration is not a form of invasion.
“I don’t know how serious Texas is about litigating this,” he says. “The legal claims seem extraordinarily weak.”
www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/abbott-escalates-border-dispute-from-political-crisis-to-constitutional-crisis/ar-BB1hkbiT?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d0087d5eda3649bb9075a8be26eaacd6&ei=30
I told you so. My self appointed biographer comes here on a regular basis. Now, he has to live with the FACT that I told you so and he wasted his life telling people what a dumb ass he thought I was. An invasion, by legal definition is when:
"An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder[/b]." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395.?
thelawdictionary.org/?s=invasion
The real deal is that I want Gov. Abbott to prevail. But, in order to do that he has to understand the law.
Prior to 1876 immigration was a STATE issue. Then, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over immigration to the federal government. The high Court was critical of the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco in California for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case. I've read the Constitution forwards, backward and can cite most of it off the top of my head. I have not found any section that gives the United States Supreme Court any authority to anyone or any branch of government to grant any powers, plenary or otherwise. If you disagree, please cite that section. What I'm saying is that the feds have control over immigration only because California lost by default. I think it's time to revisit that issue and get the United States Supreme Court to reinterpret the law, legislate from the bench and save the right from losing a lot of time only to be told by the courts that Abbott is full of crap if he persists in a failed legal strategy.
Each state decides who qualifies to vote. Each state decides who qualifies for a driver's license (which is de facto National ID.) It only stands to reason that each state decides who should be able to immigrate there. When the feds start deciding the issue, it gets into racial quotas, selective immigration classes (that discriminate against Whites), etc. I want Abbott to win, but I've been warning for two and half decades that the right NOT hang their hat on calling the foreigners "invaders." It doesn't fit the legal language and it will not fly in the courts. Having said that, I will still back Abbott should this escalate into a showdown. If you live in Texas or know the governor, I'm a text, phone call or e mail away. I will travel on my own dime and stand with Texans. I will be part of the civilian militia as long as I remain able bodied. You?
