When the Feds aren't doing their job, isn't it up to the State to step in?
"There's no denying immigration has become one of the most important and contentious issues in this presidential election year. And there's no better example of that than the high stakes fight between the state of Texas and the Biden administration. Three years ago, Texas' Republican Governor Greg Abbott launched "Operation Lone Star," deploying thousands of police and soldiers and miles of barriers to deter record numbers of illegal crossings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that immigration is the job of the federal government." Cecilia Vega, 60 Minutes
What hasn't been mentioned in most of the mainstream articles is the totally apathetic way in which the Homeland Security and ICE are being forced to "not" handle the border issue.
The lights are on but no on ei shome and that is what begs the daily/weekly question. "Can Texas go it alone on the Border?"
At TSFC we believe in the rights of the Citizen first and the state and federal governments after
So we hope that the following information is helpful to you as either talking points or legal rallying cries as we discuss the "legality" of a State taking back it's rights from the Federal Government.
Here goes nothing.
Under the United States legal framework, the delegation of powers between the state and federal governments is established by the Constitution and cannot be unilaterally altered by the states themselves. When the federal government vacates its duty to enforce certain laws, the situation can become legally complex and typically prompts judicial review or legislative action to resolve the conflict.
For instance, the Constitution grants the federal government certain enumerated powers and responsibilities, such as managing the military and regulating interstate commerce. These powers are established in Article I, Section 8. If the federal government fails to fulfill these duties, the states might seek recourse through several legal avenues:
Judicial Action: States may sue the federal government for failing to execute its constitutional responsibilities. For example, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), Massachusetts and other states sued the EPA for failing to regulate greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court held that the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, highlighting the role of the judiciary in addressing federal inaction.
Legislative Intervention: States can petition Congress to address the issue. If enough states are impacted, Congress may enact new legislation or amend existing laws to ensure the federal responsibilities are met.
State Powers and Responsibilities: While states cannot assume federal powers, they can take measures within their own jurisdiction to protect their citizens. For example, if federal enforcement of interstate commerce laws were to lapse, a state might implement more stringent local regulations to manage the effects until federal enforcement resumes. However, such state laws cannot contravene federal authority as per the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution).
A relevant legal example is Arizona v. United States (2012), where Arizona passed S.B. 1070, a stringent immigration law. The Supreme Court struck down several provisions of the state law, reaffirming that the power to regulate immigration is primarily a federal responsibility. This case illustrates the limits on states' abilities to encroach upon federal powers, even when the federal government is perceived to be underperforming.
In conclusion, while states cannot assume federal powers directly, they do have paths to address federal inaction through judicial and legislative means, and by implementing local measures that do not conflict with federal laws or supremacy principles.
Now that WOULD be the end except for the situation in states like Texas could be perceived and (through the various Mayorkas hearings) an almost proven fact that the Federal government has intentionally vacated the duties of Border Protection in all but name.
If that is the case, we can look at this issue from a bit of a different angle.
If a state perceives that the federal government is intentionally neglecting its responsibilities with malicious intent, the state has several legal and political avenues to address the situation. Here's a more detailed examination of the possible responses:
Judicial Action: States can bring legal action against the federal government. They can file a lawsuit in federal court, claiming that the federal government is failing to fulfill its constitutional obligations. The judiciary has the authority to issue rulings on such matters and can compel the federal government to act. The courts can serve as a check on any perceived abuse of power or negligence on the part of the federal government.
Example: In the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007), states successfully sued the federal government for not addressing greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that this failure violated the Clean Air Act.
Legislative and Political Measures: States can work through their congressional delegations to bring attention to the issue in Congress. Legislators can push for hearings, investigations, or new legislation to address the perceived neglect. Using the political process, states can create pressure through their senators and representatives.
Example: Throughout history, there have been many instances where states have rallied their congressional representatives to address federal inaction. The Civil Rights Movement saw significant state action and federal legislative change in response to state and public pressure.
Interstate Compacts: States can enter into agreements with one another to address issues that arise due to federal inaction, as long as these compacts are approved by Congress. This can provide a collective response to the problem.
Example: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is an example of an interstate compact that addresses regional transportation and infrastructure needs.
Public and Media Pressure: States can use public opinion and media campaigns to draw national attention to the federal government's inaction. This can lead to increased scrutiny and pressure on federal officials to fulfill their duties.
Example: The treatment of natural disasters, where states have sometimes used media and public opinion to highlight inadequate federal response, leading to more prompt federal action in later instances.
Supreme Court Intervention: The Supreme Court can be appealed to interpret the constitutionality of the federal government's actions or inactions, and it has the power to make binding decisions.
Example: The case of Texas v. United States (2016) involved issues of federal inaction on immigration policies, where states sought judicial intervention to address perceived federal negligence.
It's essential to note that the constitutional system of checks and balances allows for various mechanisms to address potential abuses or neglect of power. However, states cannot unilaterally assume powers that are constitutionally delegated to the federal government. Any long-term solution would likely involve a combination of judicial, legislative, and political actions to restore the balance of power and ensure federal responsibilities are met.
In all cases, ensuring compliance with the U.S. Constitution and maintaining federalism's integrity is critical. If the state's actions are challenged, the judiciary would ultimately determine the legality of such measures.
....And you wonder why Hakeem Jeffries and his minions are alwys scurrying around threatening the Supreme Court? The good ol' checks and balances system.
I hope someone gets this over to Governor Abbot or even more important to us here, to Governor DeSantis!
Comments