- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:36 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
The constitution. It gives the executive very broad and effectively supreme power over the borders, and the Court has consistently given the president vast power in that regard.
We've never quite gotten to a point where the executive is just refusing to exercise his powers to the detriment of the State to this degree.
So its gonna be interesting.
The same Constitution provides for a state to protect it's borders, would seem even more so in this case.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:36 pm to EKG
what a rino cuck
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:39 pm to Jspaspa3303
quote:
Greg Abbott needs to be Trumps attorney general .
Or, Texas’ AG needs to be Trump’s AG but Texas needs him.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:40 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
The same Constitution provides for a state to protect it's borders, would seem even more so in this case.
From invasion. It very much depends on the interpretation of Invasion.
Obviously Abbott will qualify this is as an Invasion.
Biden will say Invasion means military invasion form a foreign nation.
SpCrt will have to define it, as my understanding it has never been addressed a single time.
What did the framers mean by "Invasion". Again, I don't know what they wrote about it.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:42 pm to EKG
frick yeah!!!!!
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:43 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
This conversation is obviously above your pay grade.
So we aren't being invaded? What do most sane countries do to invaders or usurpers? They don't put out press releases everyday from behind a desk. If we are being invaded (we are) the invaders need to be killed. If you start doing that it will stop. These cute press releases accomplish nothing. Its right wing virtue signaling same thing the soy libs do. Take action. If people are invading either arrest and deport or kill them.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:43 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Is Texas getting any meaningful support from other states
They are. I know Alabama has sent folks under a State compact that was exercised.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:44 pm to The Maj
Florida sent people a long time ago. They were the first.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:45 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
I think most view this as a big deal, anyone with any level of give a frick. Not sure what average folks can do to help at this point besides cheer it on. If the situation escalates, I believe there would be whatever support is needed.
I’m talking specifically about those saying, “Texas can afford it.”
Just reminding everyone that “Texas” is actually “Texas taxpayers” and, while the large majority of us completely support spending on this fight, it’s not something Texas’ taxpayers should be fully funding alone. And there are definitely other areas that money could be spent.
Just because we have a functioning government capable of balancing a budget doesn’t mean it’s no big deal that it’s our money holding the line right now.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:47 pm to Fun Bunch
Doing a little research, I learned that the Articles of Confederation were actually clearer and used the phrase Invasion "by enemies".
This has lead to people assuming this is the Framers intent within the constitution to define "invasion".
Madison extended invasion to encompass Pirates, leading to some people to believe it clearly extends to cartels.
This has lead to people assuming this is the Framers intent within the constitution to define "invasion".
Madison extended invasion to encompass Pirates, leading to some people to believe it clearly extends to cartels.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:48 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:
No. The only thing lost was the razor wire
Which isn't going anywhere
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:49 pm to LSUGrrrl
quote:I, for one, would approve of a temporary state sales tax increase of up to 0.5% to pay for this emergency spending. A 0.5% addition to the sales tax would add $3.5 billion to the state to deal with this border invasion.
Texas taxpayers sure would appreciate it. This isn’t cheap for Texas. Y’all are just lucky we are becoming more stubborn about this issue as the feds push back.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:50 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Madison extended invasion to encompass Pirates, leading to some people to believe it clearly extends to cartels.
Well, it clearly would extend beyond other militaries if it covered pirates.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:51 pm to teke184
quote:
If DOJ wanted to kill this, they could nationalize the Texas NG and issue their own instructions about what to do
Optics would be terrible. One thing to do it to enforce a Supreme Court ruling affirming access to education by CITIZENS. Quite another to do it to foment outright dereliction of duty and lawbreaking by illegal invaders.
This post was edited on 1/24/24 at 7:59 pm
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:52 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
I, for one, would approve of a temporary state sales tax increase of up to 0.5% to pay for this emergency spending. A 0.5% addition to the sales tax would add $3.5 billion to the state to deal with this border invasion.
I would, too. I’m not sure how popular it would be statewide, though, and it would need some very specific language defining “temporary” and end date.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:53 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Doing a little research, I learned that the Articles of Confederation were actually clearer and used the phrase Invasion "by enemies".
This has lead to people assuming this is the Framers intent within the constitution to define "invasion".
Madison extended invasion to encompass Pirates, leading to some people to believe it clearly extends to cartels.
Also, it's reasonable to question the intent of people illegally entering ones domain. If the first act they commit upon arriving is illegal, already they are disrespecting the rule of law. Definitely warrants a response to protect ones borders.
No research, just my opinion.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:56 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Doing a little research, I learned that the Articles of Confederation were actually clearer and used the phrase Invasion "by enemies".
This has lead to people assuming this is the Framers intent within the constitution to define "invasion".
Madison extended invasion to encompass Pirates, leading to some people to believe it clearly extends to cartels.
It’s an interesting, unprecedented situation for sure.
Whomever said earlier in this thread (it may have been you?) that both sides (Texas and fedgov) are working from the US Constitution is correct.
I just don’t happen to believe when they were discussing “invasion,” the FFs ever envisioned hundreds of thousands of people pouring actoss the international border illegally and a bunch of federal employees allowing it to happen—thereby infringing on the rights of the American people.
The answer will ultimately lie in how SCOTUS chooses to interpret all of this.
Unfortunately it’s looking more and more like that isn’t going to work for Texas, hence the impending divorce.
This post was edited on 1/24/24 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:56 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:
I, for one, would approve of a temporary state sales tax increase of up to 0.5% to pay for this emergency spending. A 0.5% addition to the sales tax would add $3.5 billion to the state to deal with this border invasion.
I believe there's a way on the Texas state website for an individual to contribute to the cause. If I'm not mistaken, EKG has posted a link in the past in these threads.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:57 pm to lake chuck fan
Saw a video on Twitter that was a Texas NG convoy driving to Eagle Pass. The highway was lined with people cheering them on.
Page 4 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News