(no message)
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: 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.
asylum, and they don't meet the definition of that, anyway. What's an invasion? Does it have to be a military attack? There are, for example, invasive species, so an invader is really just something that is "not indigenous, or native, to a particular area."
Article IV. Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion...
(no message)
That would mean that the language in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 is meaningless.
The Court never finds that anything in the Constitution is meaningless.
But it seems to me that the actions of the Texas National Guard along the border are more akin to police actions than "engaging in war". National Guard units have been under the control of governors for a long time to deal with exigencies like riots, natural disasters, etc. This does not seem terribly different to me.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
If Trump is quashing "any" deal on the border so he can run on the invasion by millions more... AND so Putin can commit genocide... that is the height of cynicism.
It's like neither party gives a shit about the country... or even the planet.
Link: https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1750293880178647404
(no message)
Give all of us the draft to your plan.