Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Texas governor doing 'exactly right thing' amid constitutional battle over border enforcement: legal experts
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Hang Mayorkas
Jan 30, 2024, 12:10:32 AM1/30/24
to
On 15 Mar 2022, Trump Is A RUSSIAN ASSET <jth...@gmail.com> posted some
news:t0rl4b$2koa6$2...@news.freedyn.de:
> Biden is a traitor to the USA.
The latest Supreme Court decision in Texas’ battle with the Biden White
House has sparked a showdown over the Lone Star State’s constitutional
authority to defend itself with the federal government seemingly getting
in its way.
On Monday, in a 5-4 decision on an emergency appeal, the Supreme Court
ruled to temporarily overturn a lower court’s injunction that banned the
federal government from cutting razor fencing Texas had installed along
the border near Eagle Pass while litigation continues.
Late Wednesday night, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared his constitutional
authority to reserve the right of his state to self-defense against an
invasion, adding that the executive branch had broken its constitutional
pact with the states by failing to enforce federal immigration laws.
Legal experts told Fox News Digital Texas is well within its
constitutional rights and within the Supreme Court’s order to keep
building the razor-wire fence even if the feds continue to cut it before
an appeals court addresses the matter.
Gene Hamilton, vice president and general counsel at America First Legal
and a former Justice Department official in the Trump administration, said
Abbott's continuation of installing the razor wire is "exactly the right
move."
"Unless and until a federal judge comes in and says, ‘You may not, State
of Texas, put razor wire up along the border anymore,' Texas should keep
doing exactly what it needs to do. And, eventually, this turns into a game
of will between the feds and the State of Texas," Hamilton said.
ABBOTT DECLARES TEXAS HAS 'RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE' FROM MIGRANT 'INVASION'
AMID FEUD WITH BIDEN ADMIN
Hamilton noted that he believed the Supreme Court’s controversial order
was wrong and gave too much weight to the government's assertions about
the wire's effect on the federal government's ability to enforce
immigration laws.
He asserted that Texas was not interfering with the government's
enforcement of the laws by creating additional barriers along the border
and contended that those barriers actually facilitate the federal
government's ability to deter and prohibit illegal crossings at the
locations where they were present.
"The Supreme Court’s two-sentence order simply vacated the injunction
preventing the federal government from tearing down the barbed wire
fencing Texas has placed on state property while the case is on appeal,"
Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for
Legal and Judicial Studies told Fox News Digital.
"The Supreme Court’s order does not prevent Texas from continuing to
place barbed wire or other barriers along the border on state or private
property. But while the case is pending, there is nothing preventing the
federal government from tearing down the wire fencing," he said.
As to Abbott's Article 1 assertions, von Spakovsky said that "whether or
not what is happening is an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the
Constitution is a controversial and legally undetermined issue."
Article 1, Section 10, which Abbott says was "triggered" by Biden's
inaction at the border, states, "No State shall, without the Consent of
Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of
Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such
imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
GOP GOVERNORS RALLY BEHIND TEXAS AS ABBOTT DEFIES BIDEN: ‘DERELICTION OF
DUTY’
"It is truly shocking and outrageous that the Biden administration has so
intentionally and deliberately mishandled the security of our Southern
border that states like Texas, for the first time in our history, feel the
need to invoke the invasion clause," von Spakovsky said.
Ultimately, he says, the matter will need to be decided by the Supreme
Court.
In 2012, the Supreme Court decided a case against Arizona brought by the
federal government, which sued after Arizona empowered state officials to
enforce immigration laws.
Arizona lost that case, but the late Justice Antonin Scalia dissented,
writing that "as a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude
persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in
the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to
exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-gov-doing-exactly-right-thing-amid-
constitutional-battle-ever-border-enforcement-legal-experts
news:t0rl4b$2koa6$2...@news.freedyn.de:
> Biden is a traitor to the USA.
The latest Supreme Court decision in Texas’ battle with the Biden White
House has sparked a showdown over the Lone Star State’s constitutional
authority to defend itself with the federal government seemingly getting
in its way.
On Monday, in a 5-4 decision on an emergency appeal, the Supreme Court
ruled to temporarily overturn a lower court’s injunction that banned the
federal government from cutting razor fencing Texas had installed along
the border near Eagle Pass while litigation continues.
Late Wednesday night, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared his constitutional
authority to reserve the right of his state to self-defense against an
invasion, adding that the executive branch had broken its constitutional
pact with the states by failing to enforce federal immigration laws.
Legal experts told Fox News Digital Texas is well within its
constitutional rights and within the Supreme Court’s order to keep
building the razor-wire fence even if the feds continue to cut it before
an appeals court addresses the matter.
Gene Hamilton, vice president and general counsel at America First Legal
and a former Justice Department official in the Trump administration, said
Abbott's continuation of installing the razor wire is "exactly the right
move."
"Unless and until a federal judge comes in and says, ‘You may not, State
of Texas, put razor wire up along the border anymore,' Texas should keep
doing exactly what it needs to do. And, eventually, this turns into a game
of will between the feds and the State of Texas," Hamilton said.
ABBOTT DECLARES TEXAS HAS 'RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE' FROM MIGRANT 'INVASION'
AMID FEUD WITH BIDEN ADMIN
Hamilton noted that he believed the Supreme Court’s controversial order
was wrong and gave too much weight to the government's assertions about
the wire's effect on the federal government's ability to enforce
immigration laws.
He asserted that Texas was not interfering with the government's
enforcement of the laws by creating additional barriers along the border
and contended that those barriers actually facilitate the federal
government's ability to deter and prohibit illegal crossings at the
locations where they were present.
"The Supreme Court’s two-sentence order simply vacated the injunction
preventing the federal government from tearing down the barbed wire
fencing Texas has placed on state property while the case is on appeal,"
Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for
Legal and Judicial Studies told Fox News Digital.
"The Supreme Court’s order does not prevent Texas from continuing to
place barbed wire or other barriers along the border on state or private
property. But while the case is pending, there is nothing preventing the
federal government from tearing down the wire fencing," he said.
As to Abbott's Article 1 assertions, von Spakovsky said that "whether or
not what is happening is an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the
Constitution is a controversial and legally undetermined issue."
Article 1, Section 10, which Abbott says was "triggered" by Biden's
inaction at the border, states, "No State shall, without the Consent of
Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of
Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such
imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
GOP GOVERNORS RALLY BEHIND TEXAS AS ABBOTT DEFIES BIDEN: ‘DERELICTION OF
DUTY’
"It is truly shocking and outrageous that the Biden administration has so
intentionally and deliberately mishandled the security of our Southern
border that states like Texas, for the first time in our history, feel the
need to invoke the invasion clause," von Spakovsky said.
Ultimately, he says, the matter will need to be decided by the Supreme
Court.
In 2012, the Supreme Court decided a case against Arizona brought by the
federal government, which sued after Arizona empowered state officials to
enforce immigration laws.
Arizona lost that case, but the late Justice Antonin Scalia dissented,
writing that "as a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude
persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in
the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to
exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-gov-doing-exactly-right-thing-amid-
constitutional-battle-ever-border-enforcement-legal-experts
0 new messages