Supreme court Allows Fed Agents to Cut Razor Wire Texas Installed on Border

Joined
Oct 4, 2023
Messages
2,411
dont count on the supreme court to defend your borders.
I know its from breitbart but they do cite source/sources

In other words the Biden admin wanted these migrants to come into Texas.


These clowns have no issues with migrants coming onto the red states but scream heavily when migrants come to blue cities.

Supreme court Allows Fed Agents to Cut Razor Wire Texas Installed on US/Mexico Border



A federal appeals court last month forced federal agents to stop cutting the concertina wire. Large numbers of migrants have crossed at Eagle Pass in recent months.


In court papers, the administration said the wire impedes Border Patrol agents from reaching migrants as they cross the river and that, in any case, federal immigration law trumps Texas’ own efforts to stem the flow of migrants into the country.
 
imagine the kinneset telling the IDF not to engage ham ass and his magical while E coyote paragliders because they need them in telaviv to help redistrict to consolidate power over you...and pick their lettuce
 
SCOTUS is the final remedy before reconstituting the Union itself. In short, SCOTUS is committing suicide. And so be it. If it persists on this path, as it appears determined to do, this federal government must be dissolved as a result of failure to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, protection of which ends is the reason for which governments are constituted by free men. It is not difficult to re-constitute the federal government which is just an administrative body whose purpose is to serve the national interests of the sovereign States.

If you leash a dog at your front gate to ward off would-be trespassers, but the dog never does this, and only bites you instead, it's time to take the dog out back and put it out of its misery, and leash a new animal at the gate to be trained up in the correct way to protect you and your family, rather than attack you. Whether SCOTUS makes the rational choice on this issue is the last chance before a bullet to the back of this rabid dog's brain. If they want to go all the way, this will not be a civil war, as they fantasize it will be; it will simply be an elimination and reconstitution, without fuss or muss.

Thy Kingdom Come
 
SCOTUS is the final remedy before reconstituting the Union itself. In short, SCOTUS is committing suicide. And so be it. If it persists on this path, as it appears determined to do, this federal government must be dissolved as a result of failure to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, protection of which ends is the reason for which governments are constituted by free men. It is not difficult to re-constitute the federal government which is just an administrative body whose purpose is to serve the national interests of the sovereign States.

If you leash a dog at your front gate to ward off would-be trespassers, but the dog never does this, and only bites you instead, it's time to take the dog out back and put it out of its misery, and leash a new animal at the gate to be trained up in the correct way to protect you and your family, rather than attack you. Whether SCOTUS makes the rational choice on this issue is the last chance before a bullet to the back of this rabid dog's brain. If they want to go all the way, this will not be a civil war, as they fantasize it will be; it will simply be an elimination and reconstitution, without fuss or muss.

Thy Kingdom Come
Makes you wonder what kind of blackmail the Biden admin that likely pushed the SCOTUS with in order for them to agree with a unpopular admin which is starting two wars.
 
Makes you wonder what kind of blackmail the Biden admin that likely pushed the SCOTUS with in order for them to agree with a unpopular admin which is starting two wars.
John Roberts apparently visited Epstein's Island so that's probably what he got blackmailed with. No idea what they could blackmail Barrett with.
 
I heard a good argument from some news anchor stating something to the effect that if a liberal border state decided to eliminate the wall and let people in, Conservatives would want SCOTUS to rule that they cannot do that.
 
I heard a good argument from some news anchor stating something to the effect that if a liberal border state decided to eliminate the wall and let people in, Conservatives would want SCOTUS to rule that they cannot do that.

Eliminating the wall or any borders to let millions of people will kill any economy.
Europe nor America cant fit in a million of people.
 
I heard a good argument from some news anchor stating something to the effect that if a liberal border state decided to eliminate the wall and let people in, Conservatives would want SCOTUS to rule that they cannot do that.

Many of them probably would. Hypocrisy is non-partisan.

Hopefully, though, it will dawn on some of them that:
(1) the federal sword cuts both ways, and
(2) now that their enemies are the ones wielding that sword, they should stop trying to grab it themselves and just form a strong shield-wall instead.

iaglIxj.jpg
 
[h=1]Texas National Guard Responds to Supreme Court Order by Installing More Razor Wire[/h]https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/texas-national-guard-responds-supreme-court-order-installing/
 

Pretty much obvious. "The Supreme Court decided Federal tanks can drive over children"... who cares what SCROTUS decides, if it's manifestly contrary to law? Even if Texas's enforcement of its border is somehow sub-optimal per the Federales, that's an argument over efficient practices, and that should be decided by Congress, not faceless, unelected bureaucrats. If nothing else, SCROTUS is violating separation of powers by green-lighting this since it's simply not their job to decide what is the best way to enforce the border. And it is certainly not within their power to decide that the border will not be guarded!
 
I fully support the cause. This being said, I don't think Abbott cited the right legal framework to win in court.
(his statement):
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/gov...on-texas-constitutional-right-to-self-defense

If these really are the best arguments, I would be surprised, but he's still right to push forward.

He cites two precedents. Arizona vs. United States (2012), and the CONUS Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.

Neither of them truly support his actions.

1) He does not cite the actual ruling of Arizona vs. United States (2012), but rather merely a line in Justice Scalia's dissent opinion.
Scalia held a minority opinion.
2) None of the four provisions (one 1 of which SCOTUS upheld) dealt with setting up border enforcement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States#Supreme_Court_decision
3) CONUS defines a state's right to "engage in War" (the SIXTH mentioned) are not about immigration: "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."
This, of course, will have to go to SCOTUS. Although the text is talking about an actual invasion by troops of a foreign country, for example, a Texas port does not have to wait for a Presidential order to fight back against a fleet of English ships, I don't see how the present crisis applies, because the "engage in War" action is not what Texas is doing. The final condition also, "in such imminent danger", is a second condition by which the state my "engage in War".
4) Abbot says that his actions as governor relating to "self-defense" (not mentioned in the clause, but suggested under the actual term used "engage in War"), is based on HIS OWN prior declation of an invasion. The problem here is that states' governors do not possess the authority to declare invasions on their own. If the United States says it's not an invasion, are we to interpret state governors can override the POTUS and/or COTUS?

Regardless of the outcome, I support the actions, but these citations are pleading a case, not speaking of any settled laws. The first citation is irrelevant, unless SCOTUS was going to overturn Arizona vs. United States (2012). The second is a likely loss, but at least it buys time. In the meantime, we'll see what else happens.
Ultimately, if things get bad enough, Texas can use its own Constitution and also claim the Right of Secession. Article 1 Section 1 (Texas Constitition, my parentheticals):
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States (have to try this first, which is what he's doing, but it may be a loss), and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States. (this resolves the right of Texas to secede from the US formally, regardless)

What I think it does is buy time until the 2024 election, when hopefully another administration renders the action unnecessary. If it remains necessary after the election, then Texas is going to have to secede if they lose the case, or comply.
 
Last edited:
Scotusblog documents from both sides Homeland v. Texas

The Border Patrol has unimpeded authority to carry out all its duties within 25 miles of the border on ANY land. Although there are still property rights, if the actions of the private property holder impede BP they are illegal. When he said since the Con. authorizes states to "engage in War" if there is an "Invasion", they cetainly can do "lesser things" to thwart an "Invasion"; that is a red herring. The legality of any and all "lesser things" are already in the books, to what extent they are not would be a clash between the rights to enforce Texas tort law vs. Federal law. But the Con. is clearly envisioning an actual invasion by a foreign power in military, or at least with violent, murderous intent, such as a boat of pirates, or a contingent of armed foreign nationals (they would have a winning argument if it was armed Mexican drug cartels, for instance), but not in the case of unarmed immigrants.

It is helpful to review the SCOTUS documents put forth by both Homeland Sec. and Texas in this case, which may or may not go further, that would be up to Homeland and the Biden Adm, or Texas, (to act as plaintiff) but for now, Texas is still not contending the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), which means, they are likely going to lose. Lose because they really don't have the authority over the national borders that BP does. Much less would a governor have the authority to declare war, or classify scrutable events as an "Invasion" according to his own definition of that word, as if he were a sovereign leader; nor is he the judge of whether or not the supreme lawful authority is carrying out its duties or are in "breach of contract" (not even a Constitutional term).

Anyway, the briefs presented by both sides in this are in this link. I looked them over. They make for good reading (there are photos also), and are 100x more informative than anything I've seen on TV or in social media videos. I expect Abbott to continue dancing a line but have a stronger expectation this will be settled soon as a border bill is passed in Congress.

Department of Homeland Security v. Texas
Proceedings and Orders

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-homeland-security-v-texas/
 
Back
Top