The “border battles” between the government of Texas, the Biden Administration, and the various levels of the federal court system this week have become so tumultuous, observers might think they are watching a movie that is running at twice the normal speed.
On March 19, a six-member majority of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided not to grant the Biden Administration an injunction against Texas Governor Greg Abbott using state troopers and Texas National Guard members to police the border with Mexico, sending the legal dispute back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to begin its adjudication process.
These moves all meant that Abbott and his Executive Branch could arrest non-citizens, the Texas judicial system could order the non-citizens to leave the country, and the troopers could enforce those Texas court orders.
But, mere hours later, a new panel of judges on the Fifth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals – where the Texas policy is to be heard in April -- REINSTATED the injunction.
Seriously.
The case is known as “United States v. Texas” and represents the Biden Administration’s attempt to block enforcement of Texas statute SB4, which was passed in December, and became enforceable on March 5 of this year.
This new Fifth Circuit prohibition of enforcement is depicted as a “procedural move” that will apply until the Circuit Court judges consider oral arguments from the Biden Administration and Greg Abbott’s Attorney General. But both this “last minute” court action and the Administration’s SCOTUS arguments reveal how far from the US Constitution some judges and members of the Biden team are willing to stray.
For background, Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr notes:
“A federal district judge blocked the law last month, but the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals put that ruling on hold while the case was on appeal. The administration then asked the Supreme Court to lift the 5th Circuit order and keep the law from taking effect.”
The SCOTUS majority rejected that and sent the issue back to the Fifth Circuit, but, again, just a few hours later, a NEW panel of judges on the lower court bench decided to reinstate the injunction.
It’s madness, echoing the mayhem at certain border-crossings in Texas.
But, while the full Fifth Circuit readies to hear the case, a close look at the Biden Administration’s arguments is important.
It’s important because the arguments are very worrying.
Related: Key Constitutional Moment: TX Gov Abbott Invokes 'Invasion Power' At the Southern Border | MRCTV
The Biden Administration’s claim of federal control over the border will not be found in the US Constitution.
In fact, the word “immigrant” is not in the document. Control over immigration statutes is a STATE prerogative, and the only reason many Americans argue about “federal immigration and border policies” is because an 1875 Supreme Court majority invented the fake “federal control” mantra, establishing a “tradition” of future feds and judges, bureaucrats, and political candidates relying on that profoundly unfounded ruling.
The Administration actually admitted to this during the current go-round on SB4, seeing Biden Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argue before the SCOTUS that allowing the enforcement of the Texas statute would mean:
“…profoundly altering the status quo that has existed between the United States and the states in the context of immigration for almost 150 years…”
Here’s a simple reminder for Ms. Prelogar: “Status Quo” does not mean “constitutional.” The actual CONSTITUTION tells readers what is constitutional, and the act of following bad precedent from 150 years ago – precedent that can be read and compared to the actual text of the Constitution – is a crime against the people, against the Constitution, and against the folks who fought for the American Revolution, itself.
Regardless of how one might see his on-the-ground action, or inaction, or his positions on other issues, as I noted for MRCTV in January, this battle between Texas and Biden actually has seen Abbott cite the Constitution when exercising his state border prerogative:
“Abbott’s official January 24 letter to the Biden Administration (stating that he is going to use Texas Troopers and National Guardsmen on the borders) marks one of the first times since the Jeffersonian Era that any political leader actually has spelled out the clear constitutional prerogatives and the constitutional process by which the states, first, are supposed to control their borders, and, second, can request federal assistance – assistance that Biden assiduously has denied.
On a constitutional level, Abbott wrote:
‘James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government ‘shall protect each [State] against invasion,’ and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges ‘the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.’ Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).’”
Article Four, Section Four allows the feds to call up the Militia and enter a state IF, and only IF, a state legislature (or a governor, if the legislature is out of session) has requested the assistance to protect its constitutional republican system from invasion, rebellion, or rampant violence. Article One, Section Ten, Clause Three grants states the power to engage in military action for their own defense against invaders.
At that time, I also had the opportunity to observe that the Bidenistas, through White House Spokesperson Karin Jean-Pierre were not admitting the truth about immigration, in general, and what the Constitution says. As I noted:
“…the words ‘immigration’ and ‘immigrant’ do not appear in the US Constitution. None of the pro-central government blowhards has addressed the constitutional and historical reality that border control is supposed to be a state matter during times when there is no Declared War (caps are found in the Constitution).”
Indeed, abiding by the Constitution and its enumerated powers would serve to mimic water hitting a federal Wicked Witch of the West, melting the DC power, and seeing the states returned to their constitutionally reserved roles.
If a state legislature or a governor (if the legislature is not in session) ASKs the feds to lead militias into said state to “protect its constitutional” form of government from invasion, insurrection, or violence, the feds are constitutionally required to help.
Biden has not done this.
And Biden’s Solicitor General actually asked the SCOTUS to stop the Texas government from doing what it can, on its own, under the Constitution.
It’s stunning to see this level of sheer, bald-faced, attack on the so-called rulebook of the US government – from blowhards who all swear oaths to protect and defend that document and its strictly enumerated powers.
But, just as stunning is the inarticulate nonsense from black-robed SCOTUS dreamers who dissented from the majority, from those justices who are willing to allow Texas to exercise its constitutional prerogative until the case rises through the lower courts in April.
Bloomberg’s Stohr writes:
“Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Writing for herself and Jackson, Sotomayor said the court ‘invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement.’”
First Sotomayor and her ilk are not members of the SCOTUS in order to stop what they portray as chaos. They are supposed to read and conform to the US Constitution.
Second, the government of Texas not only has conformed to what the US Constitution states, the real “chaos” is not the physical chaos on the ground in Texas and other southern border states.
It’s the legal and moral chaos stirred-up, generation after generation, when people like her focus on what they think is a comfortable “legal tradition” but which is a despicable usurpation of state prerogatives.
If you would like to see more on the deeper history and constitutional citations refuting their obnoxious fantasy that the feds have “border control power” during times of non-War, you can hit this MRCTV link and this MRCTV link to find the larger story. I think you will find it worthwhile to read and to offer to friends.
Perhaps someone on the Supreme Court of the Fifth Circuit will read them, as well...
Follow MRCTV on X!
The Brittany Hughes Show: “Squatters Rights” and how criminals legally steal people’s homes.
— MRCTV (@mrctv) March 22, 2024
https://t.co/krHcfGNuRk