- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,198
- 5,699
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
There seems to be some confusion. For example, we have this case: in Texas, the State has defied the Federal government, and begun blocking the border between Texas and Mexico:
And then, we have this case, in which Hawaii places draconian restrictions on private gun ownership, in defiance of the 2nd Amendment:
Liberals lost their minds over the Texas case, but are applauding the Hawaii one.
But the problem is, in both cases, you have a State that is defying the Federal government. In the Texas case, you have the Federal government refusing to do its job and police the border, so the State decided to step in and do the job themselves. In the Hawaii case, you have the State openly nullifying the 2nd Amendment, despite what the Federal government has interpreted regarding the right to own and bear firearms.
So, who gets the last word? The States? The Fed? The Supreme Court? The Constitution? The judicial interpretation of the Constitution?
Or do we just finally acknowledge that the country is disintegrating, that there is no rule of law, and every individual citizen or State can do what Federal politicians and courts have been doing for years, and just do whatever they want, regardless of what the law or the Constitution says?
Personally, I think that when the Feds come and tell Texas that the State can't close the border, Gov. Abbott should simply say, "Sure we can. It's in the Constitution." When the Feds say, "Where is that in the Constitution?", Abbott should reply, "Why, it's in the penumbra. Remember the penumbra?"
U.S. Supreme Court says Texas can’t block federal agents from the border
The high court’s order effectively maintains long-running precedent that the federal government — not individual states — has authority to enforce border security.
www.texastribune.org
And then, we have this case, in which Hawaii places draconian restrictions on private gun ownership, in defiance of the 2nd Amendment:
Liberals lost their minds over the Texas case, but are applauding the Hawaii one.
But the problem is, in both cases, you have a State that is defying the Federal government. In the Texas case, you have the Federal government refusing to do its job and police the border, so the State decided to step in and do the job themselves. In the Hawaii case, you have the State openly nullifying the 2nd Amendment, despite what the Federal government has interpreted regarding the right to own and bear firearms.
So, who gets the last word? The States? The Fed? The Supreme Court? The Constitution? The judicial interpretation of the Constitution?
Or do we just finally acknowledge that the country is disintegrating, that there is no rule of law, and every individual citizen or State can do what Federal politicians and courts have been doing for years, and just do whatever they want, regardless of what the law or the Constitution says?
Personally, I think that when the Feds come and tell Texas that the State can't close the border, Gov. Abbott should simply say, "Sure we can. It's in the Constitution." When the Feds say, "Where is that in the Constitution?", Abbott should reply, "Why, it's in the penumbra. Remember the penumbra?"