The recent ruling by the Supreme Court prohibiting Texas from defending its border with Mexico will go down in history as a very cowardly choice that might endanger our country. If we do nothing, the repercussions can be dire.
That choice revealed the real ramifications, which extended beyond razor wire to the core of our federal government. It is a betrayal of our country, first by a president and now by two Republican-appointed judges.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
Come explore this essay with me as we examine the issue that our country is now facing. Since the matter is so serious and threatens your very existence, give it your whole attention.
The Wall and Biden
President Joe Biden issued an executive order to halt building of President Donald Trump’s southern border wall shortly after taking office. He gave the explanation that the wall was “a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security.”
We instantly realized that this man, who had somehow become president, was not on our side because of how ridiculous this comment sounded. Biden had just taken the oath required by the constitution to serve as president. “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and he had thrown open the country’s borders to all comers in a matter of hours.
Declaring that he was the second step in the Obama administration’s plan to “fundamentally transform” the US, Biden made this announcement. He was announcing the end of the Trump era and the return of the revolutionaries to power.
Was the Trump barrier actually a “waste of money”?
Trump was under fire from the establishment media for allocating $11 billion to erect walls along 50 miles of our southern border. However, the dishonest media showed no qualms with allocating almost ten times that amount to safeguard the borders of Ukraine. The House GOP has also calculated that the yearly cost of providing care for illegal aliens under the Biden open border policy will be $451 billion.
When Biden opened the door, more than 3.8 million people entered. With more illegals than the population of 22 states combined, the country is in danger of collapsing due to terrorism, drug overdose fatalities, child trafficking, crime, deficit spending, and other issues. Even if he had tried, he would not have been able to further harm the country.
Was the wall actually “divert attention from genuine threats to our homeland security”?
Under Biden’s administration, we are seeing an influx of males of military age coming across our border from countries that are hostile to us. Remarkably, people on the terrorist watch list are sneaking into the country, endangering our country.
We understood Biden’s thuggish message—we have the power and we know how to use it—because his comments regarding the wall were so blatantly incorrect and in your face.
ALERT! Major Water Restrictions In Effect!
The Republicans in Congress: Where Were They?
Republicans have been expected by the American people to cease the mayhem for a very long time.
During Biden’s first two years in office, we held our breath and waited for the vice president to break the tie in the Senate and the Democrats’ majority in the House in favor of Biden. We have been waiting for our party to take the required steps to put an end to this existential threat to the country for the last year, since January 2023, when Republicans seized control of the House.
Recall that the House must provide its consent before any funds may be spent from the US Treasury. Republicans had the opportunity to halt the attack on our borders, but they chose not to. For whatever reason, they gave in, fearing they would be held accountable for a government shutdown—whether it fear of bad headlines or allegiance to the billionaire donor class.
In the meanwhile, the message from mainstream Republicans, as opposed to anomalies like Nikki Haley, has been straightforward: CLOSING THE BORDER.
The border issue worsened to the point where several congressional Democrats, including five senators, started to distance themselves from Biden as we waited for the Republicans to take action.
It is imperative that House Republicans unite and take all necessary measures to assist Texas in safeguarding her border, which Biden refuses to protect.
States Protecting the Country
As Republicans, we looked to the states to stand up and protect our borders with actual action.
We were well aware that Gavin Newsom in California was hopeless. Doug Ducey, the governor of Arizona, was a McCain copy who showed no inclination to stop election fraud and would take no action to defend his people. After Katie Hobbs took over Arizona in January 2023, the Republican legislature lacked the strength to oppose her.
But at last, Texas Governor Greg Abbott began to move, presumably encouraged by strong conservative Attorney General Ken Paxton.
He constructed a floating barrier and put razor wire along a thirty-mile section of the Rio Grande. He deserves great praise and our backing for his efforts to preserve not only Texas but the entire country.
The Courts’ Cowardice
Biden’s Department of Homeland Security, led by Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, naturally filed a federal court case against Texas’ razor wire barrier. The Fifth Circuit, which leans conservative, gave Abbott the victory; nevertheless, the Supreme Court agreed with Biden and rejected the will of the American people.
Granting the Biden administration sole power over the U.S.-Mexico border, the high court voted 5–4. The court overturned the Fifth Circuit’s injunction to remove the razor wire that Abbott had ordered put on the border in little more than a phrase.
The Supreme Court’s judgment, while not addressing merit, leaves the southern border of the country unguarded until the courts rule on Biden’s ongoing case against Abbott. That lawsuit may go on until January of next year, when Biden’s term expires.
But the American people are the target of this decision, not simply Abbott.
In this case, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in embracing the Democratic ideal of open borders, as we have come to expect.
The ostensible justification provided by the Biden administration for seeking to overturn the injunction—to safeguard those who are unauthorized immigrants entering the country—was simply untrue to these judges. Reopening the border to enable the invasion of the country was the true motivation.
Federal courts have blocked Texas’ attempts to defend its boundaries in other instances as well.
The Texas floating barrier in the Rio Grande was challenged before the Fifth Circuit last month. In that instance, the court of appeals concurred with the Biden administration and mandated the barrier’s removal.
The Questions of Constitutionality
Normally, there would be time to wait for the legal proceedings to conclude and watch to see if the Supreme Court changes its mind. However, these are not typical times.
People from all around the world are moving to America. The fact that immigrants may represent a fifth column in a world where threats are growing only serves to heighten the gravity of the situation.
Biden has been incredibly corrupt in addition to being incompetent in permitting this invasion. He is, as I stated, implementing Obama’s agenda to “fundamentally transform” America—in a negative way.
What actions are possible? Texans must unite in support of Abbott. Other states must unite in support of Texas. And this could be the moment for the populace to figure out how to get past a Supreme Court decision that is blatantly unlawful.
This judgment is as worthy of respect as the Dred Scott ruling, which prohibited African Americans from obtaining citizenship, the Korematsu case, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the Roe v. Wade decision, which resulted in the deaths of more than 40 million infants. The Supreme Court frequently makes mistakes.
This choice is as incorrect as it gets.
I intend to support Abbott and Paxton, but we shall see how far they are ready to go this. It’s not a very close call. But we have to exercise caution. We must confirm that we are abiding by the law and the Constitution.
There are two very important constitutional issues raised by Roberts-Barrett’s surrender to the Biden administration.
To begin with, what power does Texas have to protect its own borders? Put another way, what power does the federal government have over Texas’s right to defend its borders?
Second, who gets to judge who is correct—Abott or the Biden administration? Can the states rely on federal courts, which are a branch of the federal government, to properly resolve these conflicts between state and federal authority? And if not, by whom?
I want to concentrate on the first problem today.
The Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4 declares: “The United States shall … protect each [state] against Invasion.” Not only has Biden utterly failed in this responsibility, but he also made the decision not to do it.
The Constitution permits states to oppose invasions in these situations by using force, up to and including war.
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay” (Section 10, Article I, emphasis added).
A Real Invasion
The majority of Americans, including a sizable portion of Democrats, now think that the southern border is being invaded. 51 counties in Texas have proclaimed there to be an invasion. Only in Texas has the Biden administration had to cope with an influx of over two million illegal immigrants.
It’s obvious that this is an invasion.
“Demographically, socially and culturally, the reconquista of the Southwest United States by Mexico is well under way,” Scholar Samuel P. Huntington of Harvard stated in 2004. “No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans can and do make that claim.”
The history from those remarks in 2004 provides the evidence.
Texas taxpayers bear the annual expense of more than $13 billion due to the estimated 2.2 million illegal aliens residing in the state. The financial catastrophe on its own cannot last.
The national statistics continue to be much more startling than the Texas figures.
“At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $182 billion to cover the costs incurred from the presence of more than 15.5 million illegal aliens, and about 5.4 million citizen children of illegal aliens,” By the Federation for American Immigration Reform, it seems.
“That amounts to a cost burden of approximately $8,776 per illegal alien/citizen child. The burden of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling, with the gross cost per taxpayer at $1,156 every year.”
The criminal behavior of illegal aliens has also come at a heavy cost to Americans.
The Texas Department of Public Safety claims that between 2011 to 2023, “297,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 509,000 criminal offenses.”
Those included “940 homicide charges; 64,127 assault charges; 9,246 burglary charges; 59,936 drug charges; 1128 kidnapping charges; 25,441 theft charges; 39,694 obstructing police charges; 2,912 robbery charges; 6,422 sexual assault charges; 7,410 sexual offense charges; and 6,193 weapon charges.”
The Heritage Foundation claims that “In 2022 alone, U.S Customs and Border Protection arrested 1,142 illegal aliens who were convicted of assault, battery, or domestic violence; 1,614 who were convicted of driving under the influence; and 2,239 who were convicted of drug possession and trafficking. Additionally, CBP arrested 62 illegal aliens convicted of homicide or manslaughter and 365 convicted of sexual offenses.”
In fiscal year 2023, CBP “arrested 35,433 aliens with criminal convictions or outstanding warrants nationwide, including 598 known gang members, 178 of those being MS-13 members,” as stated by the Homeland Security Committee of the House. CBP additionally “seized 27,293 pounds of fentanyl, coming across the Southwest border — enough to kill more than 6 billion people.”
What would an invasion look like, if this isn’t one?
State Action Devoid of Federal Consent
In a world where the federal government typically prevails over the states in conflicts, this may come as a shock, but Texas now has the constitutional right to retaliate after being invaded, even in the absence of federal consent.
Recall that the states were not created by the federal government; rather, the states existed before the federal government.
Despite the fact that the states and the federal government are separate, independent entities, the federal government recognizes them as such. Unless they ceded that authority to the federal government, the states retain all the authority and power from before the Constitution was ratified.
Despite what Roberts and Barrett (who seems to vote whenever Roberts commands her to) may believe, states did not give up the ability to fend against invasions to the federal government.
Future Chief Justice John Marshall made a strong case during the Virginia constitutional ratification arguments that the states should have the concurrent authority to deploy armed action to stave against invaders or stop impending threats.
“To me it appears … unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.”
The authority of states to deploy armed force without first consulting Congress was recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Houston v. Moore (1820), early in the history of our country. As to the court’s ruling, “It is obvious that there are two ways by which the militia may be called into service; the one is under state authority, the other under authority of the United States.”
Justice Joseph Story concurred, even in dissent, that when Congress does nothing, “the states [may] sufficiently provide for their own safety against … the sudden invasion of a foreign enemy.”
The Supreme Court reaffirmed a state’s right to employ military force to defend itself in Luther v. Borden (1849):
“Unquestionably, a State may use its military power to put down an armed insurrection, too strong to be controlled by the civil authority. The power is essential to the existence of every government, essential to the preservation of order and free institutions, and is as necessary to the States of this Union as to any other government” (emphasis added).
State courts have generally acknowledged that in order to repel Confederate invasions during the Civil War, military intervention was required.
One such state is West Virginia. “The right to engage in war without the consent of Congress, is reserved to the States respectively, if actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay”
The courts of Kentucky concur: “The sovereign right and power to protect their own government and people against invasion and domestic violence, so far from being either delegated or prohibited, is expressly recognized by the United States Constitution” (Price v. Poynter [1866]).
Additionally, Pennsylvanian courts have authorized state military action to stave off an invasion: “I find no clause in the constitution by which the right of self-protection is taken away from the states, in all respects. On the contrary, I find that in time of war, or when actually invaded, or in imminent danger not admitting of delay, the right of the state to keep troops or ships of war is reserved by express exception” (Speer v. School Directors [1865], emphasis added).
I will discuss if a Supreme Court ruling actually resolves all disputes and whether it is the functional equivalent of the wording in the Constitution in a later post.
But for the sake of this discussion, let me just declare that, in spite of all the precedents from history and the law that back Texas, the state’s ability to repel invasion has been temporarily taken away from Texas and all other states by our great Supreme Court. Recall that the states have this authority, notwithstanding what a contemporary federal court may believe.
If this were a less important issue, I would be one of the individuals who bear ills as long as they can be suffered. Can Texas, the other states, and the general public just wait another year for the opportunity to reestablish order through the political process?
There are moments when I believe that Biden’s advisors have made the decision to accelerate the country’s devastation in what may be his last year in office. But when will the Biden policies do irreversible harm to our nation, even at the present pace of illegal immigration? And after a year, what type of country will we have if we just wait and watch him till January 20, 2025?
Finally, I would like you to consider these issues carefully.
The foundation of our nation’s survival is the power of a sovereign state to repel an invasion, as affirmed by our Constitution’s architects. Still, to govern for Biden over Texas and every other state, two unelected attorneys in robes disregarded our federal system.
As the American people deal with these pressing issues, urgency is essential. Together, let’s confront them and present our prayers.
Before it’s too late, let’s pick up the public discourse on these matters and take the required measures.
