Supreme Court Hands Texas a Major Win Over Biden, Allows Border Law to Be Enforced

The people of Texas may now do what they have a natural and constitutional right to do anyway.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court lifted its own temporary freeze and rejected a Biden administration request to block enforcement of Texas Senate Bill 4, a new law signed in December by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott that allows state law enforcement officials to arrest illegal immigrants, per NBC News.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the good news on the social media platform X.

“HUGE WIN: Texas has defeated the Biden Administration’s and ACLU’s emergency motions at the Supreme Court,” Paxton wrote.

“Our immigration law, SB 4, is now in effect. As always, it’s my honor to defend Texas and its sovereignty, and to lead us to victory in court,” he added.

Trending:

Trump Slashes Names from VP Shortlist, Likes Ramaswamy, McCarthy, Cruz for Key Administration Roles: Report

Legal arguments over the bill’s ultimate fate will continue in lower courts. In the meantime, however, Texas authorities will enforce SB 4.

A majority opinion did not accompany the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling, but the three liberal justices nonetheless managed to produce two combined written dissents.

Did the Supreme Court get this one right?

In one of them, Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor in complaining that SB 4 would lead to “chaos.”

“Today, the Court invites further chaos and crisis in immigration enforcement,” the dissenting opinion began.

Meanwhile, Justice Elena Kagan reflected the Supreme Court’s centuries-long drift toward national consolidation.

“I would not allow Texas Senate Bill 4 to go into effect,” she wrote.

In a dissent commendable only for its brevity, Kagan insisted that “the subject of immigration generally, and the entry and removal of noncitizens particularly, are matters long thought the special province of the Federal Government.”

Related:

Libs So Convinced Trump Will Win That They’re Trying to Boot Sotomayor Before Election

“Long thought,” yes, but indefensible under any fair reading of the U.S. Constitution’s text, let alone the Framers’ original intent.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

And Article IV, Section 4 requires the federal government to “guarantee” republican forms of government in the states and “protect each of them against Invasion.”

The Constitution says nothing else on the subject of immigration — and the federal government derives its power from no other source.

Where the Constitution remains silent, therefore, all powers remain reserved by the states and the people.

The 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, makes this clear. But the principle of reserved powers would hold true even if the Bill of Rights did not exist.

After all, the sovereign people wrote the Constitution, and the Constitution created the federal government. In a free republic, that is the pecking order.

Of course, our Pantheon-level Founding Fathers wanted legal immigration.

“Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?” President Thomas Jefferson asked rhetorically in his 1801 First Annual Message.

But the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence also understood federalism far better than Kagan does.

“I see as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the states,” Jefferson wrote to one correspondent in 1825, “and the consolidation in itself of all powers foreign and domestic; and that too by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.”

In short, Americans since Jefferson have celebrated legal immigration.

However, the Constitution requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. And people who enter the U.S. in violation of the law qualify as literal invaders.

The Constitution further authorizes Congress to make rules regarding citizenship.

Aside from these specific grants of power, the federal government has no immigration-related authority.

Where the Constitution remains silent, the states reserve all power for themselves.

And where the federal government fails in its obligation to protect the states, the states and their people possess a natural right to defend themselves.

Thus, Texas must act and continue acting regardless of what federal courts ultimately decide.


An Important Message from Our Staff:

 

In just a few months, the world is going to change forever. The 2024 election is the single most important election of our lifetime. 

 

We here at The Western Journal are committed to covering it in a way the establishment media simply will not: We will tell the truth, and they will lie.

 

But Big Tech and the elites don’t want the truth out. That’s why they have cut us off from 90% of advertisers. Imagine if someone cut your monthly income by 90%. That’s what they’ve done to people like us. 

 

As a staff, we are asking you to join us to fight this once-in-a-lifetime fight. Without you not only will The Western Journal fail, but America will fail also. As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

 

Will you support The Western Journal today and become a member

 

A Western Journal Membership costs less than one coffee and breakfast sandwich each month, and it gets you access to ALL of our content — news, commentary, and premium articles. You’ll experience a radically reduced number of ads, and most importantly you will be vitally supporting the fight for America’s soul in 2024.

 

This is the time. America will live or die based on what happens this year. Please join us to get the real truth out and to fight the elites, Big Tech, and the people who want America to fail. Together, we really can save the country.

 

Thank you for your support!

 

P.S. Please stand with us!

Tags:

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.

Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.



Source link