Is this going to be the “first shot” of a new civil war? If the US supreme court rules
against Texas and Texas ignores the ruling, keeping it’s national guard at the border,
then what happens?
I’m not trying to cause trouble with this question but this is making me a bit
nervous about the future of our country.
What makes you think the SC will go “against Texas?” Their ways De Jure have been rather anti-federal govt. I do not know the details nor precedent, but if anything, I feel like it’s a setup for the “Supreme Court” to yet again weaken the fed. govt. and empower states rights.
The president might try federalizing the Texas National Guard which would prevent them from doing what they are doing.
If Texas keeps using their National Guard that way then start arresting those ordering them to do so.
An article about the situation for those who may have no idea what the OP is talking about:
The Rio Grande is navigable, isn’t it? I’d expect the USCG should have the authority (and the responsibility) to clear away any such hazards. And impose consequences upon those who put them in place.
Maybe on a raft…maybe. 2000 was the first year water from the Rio Grande didn’t reach the Gulf of Mexico. Some water may make it now but I don’t think this is a river you can send Coast Guard vessels down anywhere beyond a canoe or raft.
Just for clarity, the term “Texas National Guard” is a misleading oxymoron. The organization in question is the Texas Military Department.
The Texas Military Department is composed of the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard. It’s not clear if it’s National Guardsmen or State Guardsmen who are denying Border Patrol entrance to the park.
Yes, that’s correct. Since the concern is about Feds vs. State, I just thought it was clearer to leave the “national” part out.
And to be even clearer, the first two components (Army and Air Guard) are subject to being federalized, but the State Guard is not. Honestly, though, the State Guard is sort of a pale imitation of the Army National Guard. It’s composed of a mix of bored former service members and fair number of volunteers who frankly just want to play soldier. There’s little equipment – state guardsmen even have to buy their own uniforms.
Eh, I shouldn’t shit on them too much, they do a decent enough job in non-military scenarios like assisting with disaster response. But if Abbott’s counting on them to lead the Texas defense in the second civil war, then it’ll be over in about three minutes.
The Texas State Guard is a State Defense Force, by law not subject to federalization. However it is arguable that state defense forces have to be permitted by an act of congress (which it did) as laid out in the federal constitution’s Compact Clause (emphasis mine):
So a sufficiently rankled fed could shut those down too by revoking a state’s permission to keep “troops”.
At that point all that would remain would be the “unorganized militia”- the citizenry at large. If Texas tried to mobilize them via mustering them as civilian deputies, the Federal government would have to exercise its long-neglected constitutional authority to
-via a new federal Militia Act which would presumably include as part of the “prescribed discipline” some provision for saying “don’t revolt against the federal government”.
The Federal Government, in spite of what people may imagine, is not some all powerful overlord that can step in and take over. Local state and county authorities can just tell them to fuck off and take the issue to the courts.
Some people may think that there is a stair-step like structure to law enforcement. County>State>Federal but it doesn’t really work that way. Local officials are not required to step aside and defer to the Feds. That is what the courts are for and whatever issue can be addressed there and dragged out for a long time. It is a TV thing, where the FBI comes in and just takes over a local investigation by flashing their FBI credentials. You see this on TV crime shows.
And those people might go to jail for trying that.
Federalizing the National Guard is nothing new. If locals tell the feds to fuck off they can certainly face criminal charges for that. The only way they get around that is to fight the Feds (Civil War) and win.
And the Feds are not required to step aside and defer to the locals, either. These are Border Patrol officers, who were trying to do their job by patrolling the border. But Texas doesn’t like strong border controls, so they interfered with the performance of their official duties. As a result of which interference, people died.
In other words, the same demographic as the Proud Boyz. But with the actual Texas government behind them.
Back in the mid 1990s I had an employee who was involved in the then-nascent Nevada equivalent to the Texas State Guard. He had been Army enlisted for one term doing peacetime duty.
The more I learned of what he thought and what the Nevada force was supposed to be about the less I liked it. And I’d been a USAF officer for a decade ending just a handful of years before.
They wanted to be Proud Boyz with government backing: roving death squads answering only to a frothing racist RW subdivision of the state executive while state law enforcement was told to look the other way.
I can’t imagine the idea has aged well over the intervening ~30 years and the radicalization of much of right-leaning America.
They’re probably no match man for man in terms of firepower and discipline versus real federal troops. beyond that they are vastly outnumbered. But in terms of fanaticism and violent capacity against the unarmed citizenry, they’re probably plenty formidable.
I think it’s worth noting that indicted insurrectionist John Eastman plotted out the pretty much the exact scenario that’s beginning to happen in Texas a few years ago, and co-authored an article outlining the scheme.
He called the scheme “protective resumption”, and, it short, it argues that since the federal government has failed in their constitutional duty to protect the borders, the states should be allowed to do so.
Heres a link to the article:
If you don’t want to visit that site, which is totally understandable, here’s an excerpt
The details would have to be a matter of careful forethought and preparation. But to paint the possibilities in broad strokes, a governor might mobilize state law enforcement and national guard units to take up positions at commonly used crossing points, and simply turn back illegal entrants, or place them in state holding centers from which they would be returned by air or other conveyance to the countries from which they entered. Equipped with a more robust constitutional mandate, eminent domain could also be used to acquire land at or near the border to erect walls and place other impediments to unauthorized entry. And this shouldn’t be by unilateral gubernatorial action, but done in concert, if at all possible, with the relevant state legislatures. Checkpoints would also have to be established along the lines demarcating borders with states that didn’t join in this effort in order to prevent migrant circumvention. Here COVID precedents could be drawn upon.
As in the case of any deliberately thrown gauntlet, the bolder these policies, the better. Attempts by the national government to obstruct them would be fought in the courts, but even more importantly in the arena of public opinion, where the emphasis would be on the patriotic character of the moves and the national emergency that dictates them. Supporters could be directed to the borders, where they would demonstrate and provide cheer and comforts to the police and guardsmen. Demonstrations would also be mounted in major cities, making this a high intensity, media saturating, citizen-involved campaign.
The subsequent juridical, political, and public relations combat would be key to the strategy’s success.
And here’s a link to an article about the article.
This is a political ploy that’s been in the works for a long time, and the election year timing is no coincidence.
The officers themselves may feel different. This article has one statement from their union president. I’ve seen others. You might say that’s only one guy but I think it’s more than that. Border Patrol is undermanned and overwhelmed.
Then why are they opposed to federal help?
Border Patrol is the Feds. And being undermanned should make them even less tolerant of folks making their jobs harder.
My mistake. I thought it was the Texas people praising their governor for blocking the federal patrol.
So, the Federal agents are praising Texas for stopping them from doing their jobs because…less border to patrol?