Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Amy Coney Barrett,...

Four of the justices voted against the feds. That includes Thomas and Alito, two of the most reliable, pro-as-written-constitutionalists to ever sit on the court.

So,I would guess her vote was not in keeping with the law and constitution.

Exactly.

That's interesting commentary coming from a guy whose class allegiance, inability to think strategically, if at all, guaranteed the South would lose. His unwavering support of dear friend, Braxton Bragg caused the death of hundreds of hard fighting men in pointlessly lost battles. That incompetent poppin jay's petty obstruction of Bedford Forrest was treasonous and nearly got him killed by the most tenacious and brilliant tactician the South ever had. It's hard to believe anyone so self centered and ineffective ever learned to think deeply and see anything clearly after it was too late to do any good. But the surprising observation was spot on.

I heard a pretty good description today for the Supreme Court, I hadn’t thought of it this way.. A two line decision. The Federal government could cut the wire, but nothing said it was illegal for Texas to install wire. I like the idea that Abbott put Biden on notice and as the commentator mentioned so far he blinked. The ruling did not tell Texas they had to remove it.

Exactly!!

Catholics: if they're not f*cking little kids, they're destroying the country.

Hate it that your statement is true.

The question then becomes, Where is all that money (and it is a LOT of money) coming from that the catholics are channeling across the border to fund the giant migration convoys of illegals? Then, the order of business becomes cutting that money off.

So we guess.

This absolutely! If they fail to follow the clearest of law, that has no ambiguity, they should be removed.

Horse, water. Drink if you want.

I think you mean teachers.

What's so controversial? There are longstanding court rulings that grants the federal government the sole and Constructional authority for border security. State's Rights do not supercede Federal authority. Read the Constitution.

If you don't like the current immigration policy of Team Biden, then Congress needs to act. They need to start by removing Mayorkas, something that the GOP has failed to do, and then pass new laws that force the Executive branch to change their policy.

None of this is the responsibility of SCOTUS. This is a failure of Congress and more specifically the GOP. They have yet to pass any legislation to curb the problem. Apparently they are not too motivated to solve the issue before the election. It keeps the base all excited.

Wrong within the first dozen or so words.

Now read very carefully: SCOTUS is a branch of the central government and has NO legitimate authority to set the boundaries of federal power. The Constitution itself sets those boundaries and SCOTUS cannot modify them. We may collectively have been conditioned to believe otherwise, but that does not make it true.

From another perspective: the States ratified the Constitution as it was written---including the Tenth Amendment. Ratification was not forfeiture of States' authority.

Or another: the States created the central government, and being the creator of it are no more subject to its every whim than God is subject to the whims of man.

Do you get it?

I get the fact that it is not the duty of SCOTUS to enact laws. They are supposed to dutifully follow the Constitution and nothing more.

I get the fact that the Tenth Amendment is quite clear - States Rights do not supercede Federal Laws.

I get the fact that long-standing case law clearly grants the Federal government authority over border security.

And finally, I get the fact that this is a simple matter of the Federal government not enforcing border security. Like it or not, States cannot suddenly decide to override Federal policy. Sure they can bitch and moan, but this is a matter for Congress to address and not SCOTUS nor the State of Texas.

LOL. Read the 10th one more time. Wait, no---read it for the FIRST time.

Well said, and spot on.

Furthermore, there is no exclusively delegated Federal authority in the Constitution over the border of a State. In fact, there's a clear statement of authority in the Constitution left to the States with regard to their own borders. It's in Article 1, Section 10, where it states unambiguously that a State may engage in war, even without the consent of the Federal Government, if it finds itself subject to foreign invasion. There can be no other words to describe what's happening at our southern border.

I believe that clause or section goes so far as to spell out a federal OBLIGATION to defend the border as well.

In the bigger picture, the Constitution is not at all about limiting the rights of either individuals OR States. It's about the limitations and constraints placed upon the central government. And this SCOTUS bullshit has gone way beyond the Constitution also.

...and for Mr. STRS's benefit, the so-called "supremacy clause" (which has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment in the first place) does not contradict or nullify the rest of the contents of the document in any way, no matter what you've been led to believe.

It absolutely doesn't.