Holy shit, Texas is like one of those Sovereign Citizens crazies but at a state level.
Someone should cover up all the "Welcome to Texas" signage with giant pieces of cardboard with "PR1V4T3 (not for commerce)" sloppily handwritten in Sharpie.
100%. So glad I got out of there when I did, it's nice to be safe and sound up here in Colorado!
This is next level SovCit bullshit.
Oh, don't worry, as soon as the lunatic money dries up it'll be back to whatever the new purchasing billionaire wants.
More like once the election is over, the crisis will mysteriously disappear.
Depends on who wins. If Republicans win it will disappear. If Democrats win it will worsen until there are piles of bodies that they can blame Democrats for. The political theater is so abhorrently transparent these days it hurts.
Sorry, but I had to downvote you for encouraging complacency.
This is not normal. It is not going to go away unless we actively work to stop it.
Oh no, a fake fucking downvote from an idiot that thinks downvotes matter.
Who the fuck cares? Why the fuck do you think anyone cares?
Wow, you completely missed the point.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is relying on the compact theory of the U.S. Constitution to defy the U.S. Supreme Court
Is this the Supreme Court ruling that said that Border Patrol could cut barbed wire in Eagle Pass?
Yes and if you notice Abbott isn't actually preventing that order from being carried out. That's why no one has been arrested under 18 U.S. Code § 372 yet.
Abbot is just making a lot of noise & wasting tax payer money. This is political theater for #fascists.
Tax payer money is never “wasted”, it’s always kickbacks.
I assure everyone here, some of Abbott’s friends are making bank off this.
Cuz legally "compact" isn't a thing and they know it, their language is intentional. If it was a real judicial thing you bet yr ass they'd be calling it that. This is all smoke and whistles. Testing the Overton window with pre-secessionist speak.
Even so, crazies could start shooting and start a war for real
Yep. He's still not letting them in, and he's putting up more wire.
These comments directly conflict each other.
No, they don't. SCotUS order didn't say anything about Texas not putting more wire up.
They can't stop the Federal government from removing it.
No they don't conflict in the slightest.
What part of these comments do not conflict? I even minimized the third comment to make sure there wasn't confusion. Apparently I needed to not include the topic they were responding to because that confused people.
How could the federal government be cutting the wire and not be allowed in at the same time? Conflict
What the Supreme Court did was vacate the lower court's injunction against federal officials cutting or removing the wire. SCOTUS said that ruling was incorrect, and therefore the federal officials can proceed.
SCOTUS did not directly order Texas to permit them to do so (federal law and the Supremacy Clause arguably already require that), and it did not directly prohibit Texas from putting up more wire.
Texas is in defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling that the law permits federal officials to remove the wire, and is actively impeding and interfering with federal authority to an extent we haven't seen in decades, but as the Supreme Court hasn't given any direct orders to Texas regarding this issue, Abbott is not in violation of them to risk being arrested under the statue the other commenter referenced.
I must be missing something.
So the law states the federal government can remove the wire, and Texas is obstructing it. How would they not be in violation if they are impeding them from removing it?
They arguably absolutely are in violation of federal law, and are actively interfering with federal authority. What they are not doing is violating a ruling from the Supreme Court requiring them to act or to refrain from acting, so there isn't clear, cut-and-dry grounds for immediate arrest. Abbott is pushing back against federal authority to see how far he can go, but he's not outright refusing to abide by a directive from the Supreme Court, because the Court has given no such directive.
Then why could they not arrest them for breaking the federal law...? That existed whether or not the supreme court said anything.
They don't need to argue about judicial proceedings they are the executive branch, their job is to make the arrests for breaking federal law. Then courts can decide whether they are guilty. That's why we have the separation. This bologna about asking a judiciary to decide whether someone is guilty of an act before making the arrests clearly just allows more issues to arrise.
Because Abbott is arguing that the Constitution gives him the authority to do what he's doing, and the case is much less cut-and-dry than if he openly defied an injunction from the Supreme Court. Plus, arresting the sitting governor of a state isn't something that's entered into lightly, and federal authorities obviously want to have their ducks in a row before making such a move. Abbott is playing chicken with them and basically daring them to do something to see how much he can get away with.
Obviously I'd be all in favor of throwing that sack of shit to rot in a federal prison right now, but there's a lot more reluctance to pull the trigger on something like that at the levels of power that matter on decisions like that.
They don't have to arrest Abbot, they are arresting the U.S. citizen that is hindering their path of performing federal law. If they don't surrender (obstruction charges) or fight back it is an act of an armed militia fighting against the U.S. For which the charge is treason. That charge would be assigned to the person who ordered or gave permission to fight against the U.S. If Abbot says they are sound to do so it is his charge. If he says to stand down the charge is the individuals who acted against. Opposition would scatter. Life in prison or possible death penalty for doing your job is not something worth it. In fact I'm sure if someone refused to stop them and was fired they would be able to sue the state of Texas for wrongful termination/ordering them to perform an illegal act against the government.
There is no separating the citizen Abbott from the Governor of Texas Abbott, and the political realities are that this is a move which they are unwilling to take right now due to the increased animosity and tensions at play.
Like I said, I agree that he should be arrested immediately and thrown in prison; hell, I think there's a case for the federal government to take over management of the entire state, but I'm not blind to the fact that the political realities make that difficult and I can certainly see why the federal authorities aren't rushing to do so.
Who shares a compact with the devil? Buy your own makeup. Oh maybe the devil is in the compact, I get it now. Makeup is the devil, making those women so damn sexy and leading those fine upstanding men down that thorny path of sin.
Sooo, less electoral points for Republicans? Tempting…
Exactly. There's no way either A. Texas secedes handing Democrats an insurmountable lead in all federal elections or 2. Texas secedes and every other red state, knowing they'd be forever in the minority, secedes with them. USA laughs. Confederates said fight wasn't fair after artillery shelled their positions from 900 miles away. "But mah shotgun.."
This is EXACTLY what the Founders intended when they Wrote the Constitution! That States would be allowed to ignore Federal Law, Kids could be Massacred in School and The Bible can become the Supreme Law of the Land!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But in 1798, facing the Alien and Sedition Acts and the jailing of sympathetic newspaper editors, Thomas Jefferson, in desperation, resurrected the idea that the United States was a mere compact.
A century later, when the Supreme Court demanded school integration in Brown v. Board of Education, some fought for Jim Crow in the name of the compact theory.
History tells us more: In the 1780s, Patrick Henry led opposition to ratification of the U.S. Constitution believing that it created a federal government too powerful and distant from the people.
When he lost that vote, Henry modeled a “loyal opposition” and told his supporters to give it fair play and seek reform “in a constitutional way.”
Ten years later, when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, George Washington was afraid that this new radical states’ rights theory threatened the nation.
John A. Ragosta, JD, Ph.D., is the author of “For the People, For the Country: Patrick Henry’s Final Political Battle.”
The original article contains 746 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
When this happens, can we all agree to call it 'Texit'?
Oh, the Texas Secessionist folks are already all over calling it that, don't you worry!
We should call it Taxes
Honest question, why are Ukraine and Taiwan allowed to be their own countries but Texas is not?
This matter was resolved in the landmark case Grant v. Lee.
Don't cite the dark magic to me. I was there when the ken burns documentary was written.
Texas entered into the Union voluntarily, and was under no obligation to do so. Had Texas wanted to remain independent, it could very easily have done so. Instead, it joined the Union, an indivisible entity with a government which has supremacy over its own in matters under its constitutional purview.
The situations in Ukraine and Taiwan are not remotely comparable.
I'm asking why Texas can't be it's own country, similarly to how Ukraine is it's own country, and how Taiwan is kind of it's own country. They're all in different situations which makes comparison an interesting exercise. I don't know the full history of any of them and I am asking out of curiosity.
Texas can't be its own country because, back when it was its own country, it voluntarily relinquished that independence to join an indivisible union as one of the constituent states under a federal government. There is no provision allowing Texas to rescind that admission and regain independence, secession is not an option.
Holy shit, Texas is like one of those Sovereign Citizens crazies but at a state level.
Someone should cover up all the "Welcome to Texas" signage with giant pieces of cardboard with "PR1V4T3 (not for commerce)" sloppily handwritten in Sharpie.
100%. So glad I got out of there when I did, it's nice to be safe and sound up here in Colorado!
This is next level SovCit bullshit.
Oh, don't worry, as soon as the lunatic money dries up it'll be back to whatever the new purchasing billionaire wants.
More like once the election is over, the crisis will mysteriously disappear.
Depends on who wins. If Republicans win it will disappear. If Democrats win it will worsen until there are piles of bodies that they can blame Democrats for. The political theater is so abhorrently transparent these days it hurts.
Sorry, but I had to downvote you for encouraging complacency.
This is not normal. It is not going to go away unless we actively work to stop it.
Oh no, a fake fucking downvote from an idiot that thinks downvotes matter.
Who the fuck cares? Why the fuck do you think anyone cares?
Wow, you completely missed the point.
Is this the Supreme Court ruling that said that Border Patrol could cut barbed wire in Eagle Pass?
Yes and if you notice Abbott isn't actually preventing that order from being carried out. That's why no one has been arrested under 18 U.S. Code § 372 yet.
Abbot is just making a lot of noise & wasting tax payer money. This is political theater for #fascists.
Tax payer money is never “wasted”, it’s always kickbacks.
I assure everyone here, some of Abbott’s friends are making bank off this.
Cuz legally "compact" isn't a thing and they know it, their language is intentional. If it was a real judicial thing you bet yr ass they'd be calling it that. This is all smoke and whistles. Testing the Overton window with pre-secessionist speak.
Even so, crazies could start shooting and start a war for real
Yep. He's still not letting them in, and he's putting up more wire.
These comments directly conflict each other.
No, they don't. SCotUS order didn't say anything about Texas not putting more wire up.
They can't stop the Federal government from removing it.
No they don't conflict in the slightest.
What part of these comments do not conflict? I even minimized the third comment to make sure there wasn't confusion. Apparently I needed to not include the topic they were responding to because that confused people.
How could the federal government be cutting the wire and not be allowed in at the same time? Conflict
What the Supreme Court did was vacate the lower court's injunction against federal officials cutting or removing the wire. SCOTUS said that ruling was incorrect, and therefore the federal officials can proceed.
SCOTUS did not directly order Texas to permit them to do so (federal law and the Supremacy Clause arguably already require that), and it did not directly prohibit Texas from putting up more wire.
Texas is in defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling that the law permits federal officials to remove the wire, and is actively impeding and interfering with federal authority to an extent we haven't seen in decades, but as the Supreme Court hasn't given any direct orders to Texas regarding this issue, Abbott is not in violation of them to risk being arrested under the statue the other commenter referenced.
I must be missing something.
So the law states the federal government can remove the wire, and Texas is obstructing it. How would they not be in violation if they are impeding them from removing it?
They arguably absolutely are in violation of federal law, and are actively interfering with federal authority. What they are not doing is violating a ruling from the Supreme Court requiring them to act or to refrain from acting, so there isn't clear, cut-and-dry grounds for immediate arrest. Abbott is pushing back against federal authority to see how far he can go, but he's not outright refusing to abide by a directive from the Supreme Court, because the Court has given no such directive.
Then why could they not arrest them for breaking the federal law...? That existed whether or not the supreme court said anything.
They don't need to argue about judicial proceedings they are the executive branch, their job is to make the arrests for breaking federal law. Then courts can decide whether they are guilty. That's why we have the separation. This bologna about asking a judiciary to decide whether someone is guilty of an act before making the arrests clearly just allows more issues to arrise.
Because Abbott is arguing that the Constitution gives him the authority to do what he's doing, and the case is much less cut-and-dry than if he openly defied an injunction from the Supreme Court. Plus, arresting the sitting governor of a state isn't something that's entered into lightly, and federal authorities obviously want to have their ducks in a row before making such a move. Abbott is playing chicken with them and basically daring them to do something to see how much he can get away with.
Obviously I'd be all in favor of throwing that sack of shit to rot in a federal prison right now, but there's a lot more reluctance to pull the trigger on something like that at the levels of power that matter on decisions like that.
They don't have to arrest Abbot, they are arresting the U.S. citizen that is hindering their path of performing federal law. If they don't surrender (obstruction charges) or fight back it is an act of an armed militia fighting against the U.S. For which the charge is treason. That charge would be assigned to the person who ordered or gave permission to fight against the U.S. If Abbot says they are sound to do so it is his charge. If he says to stand down the charge is the individuals who acted against. Opposition would scatter. Life in prison or possible death penalty for doing your job is not something worth it. In fact I'm sure if someone refused to stop them and was fired they would be able to sue the state of Texas for wrongful termination/ordering them to perform an illegal act against the government.
There is no separating the citizen Abbott from the Governor of Texas Abbott, and the political realities are that this is a move which they are unwilling to take right now due to the increased animosity and tensions at play.
Like I said, I agree that he should be arrested immediately and thrown in prison; hell, I think there's a case for the federal government to take over management of the entire state, but I'm not blind to the fact that the political realities make that difficult and I can certainly see why the federal authorities aren't rushing to do so.
Who shares a compact with the devil? Buy your own makeup. Oh maybe the devil is in the compact, I get it now. Makeup is the devil, making those women so damn sexy and leading those fine upstanding men down that thorny path of sin.
Sooo, less electoral points for Republicans? Tempting…
Exactly. There's no way either A. Texas secedes handing Democrats an insurmountable lead in all federal elections or 2. Texas secedes and every other red state, knowing they'd be forever in the minority, secedes with them. USA laughs. Confederates said fight wasn't fair after artillery shelled their positions from 900 miles away. "But mah shotgun.."
This is EXACTLY what the Founders intended when they Wrote the Constitution! That States would be allowed to ignore Federal Law, Kids could be Massacred in School and The Bible can become the Supreme Law of the Land!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But in 1798, facing the Alien and Sedition Acts and the jailing of sympathetic newspaper editors, Thomas Jefferson, in desperation, resurrected the idea that the United States was a mere compact.
A century later, when the Supreme Court demanded school integration in Brown v. Board of Education, some fought for Jim Crow in the name of the compact theory.
History tells us more: In the 1780s, Patrick Henry led opposition to ratification of the U.S. Constitution believing that it created a federal government too powerful and distant from the people.
When he lost that vote, Henry modeled a “loyal opposition” and told his supporters to give it fair play and seek reform “in a constitutional way.”
Ten years later, when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, George Washington was afraid that this new radical states’ rights theory threatened the nation.
John A. Ragosta, JD, Ph.D., is the author of “For the People, For the Country: Patrick Henry’s Final Political Battle.”
The original article contains 746 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
When this happens, can we all agree to call it 'Texit'?
Oh, the Texas Secessionist folks are already all over calling it that, don't you worry!
We should call it Taxes
Honest question, why are Ukraine and Taiwan allowed to be their own countries but Texas is not?
This matter was resolved in the landmark case Grant v. Lee.
Don't cite the dark magic to me. I was there when the ken burns documentary was written.
Texas entered into the Union voluntarily, and was under no obligation to do so. Had Texas wanted to remain independent, it could very easily have done so. Instead, it joined the Union, an indivisible entity with a government which has supremacy over its own in matters under its constitutional purview.
The situations in Ukraine and Taiwan are not remotely comparable.
I'm asking why Texas can't be it's own country, similarly to how Ukraine is it's own country, and how Taiwan is kind of it's own country. They're all in different situations which makes comparison an interesting exercise. I don't know the full history of any of them and I am asking out of curiosity.
Texas can't be its own country because, back when it was its own country, it voluntarily relinquished that independence to join an indivisible union as one of the constituent states under a federal government. There is no provision allowing Texas to rescind that admission and regain independence, secession is not an option.