Below is my column in The Hill on the worsening situation at the Southern border and how the Supreme Court laid the seeds for this crisis over a decade ago. The courts have left few options for either the states or Congress in compelling the enforcement of federal law.
Here is the column:
The upcoming impeachment vote on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has caused a deep rift even among his critics, including some Republican members of Congress.
Many view Mayorkas as an unmitigated disaster as Homeland secretary. The massive numbers of migrants crossing the border has become a growing economic and security threat to the entire nation.
I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards. But whatever happens in the House, the real crisis is not the employment status of Mayorkas. It is what brought the House to seriously consider this extreme remedy in the first place.
The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. U.S., if not earlier. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. The court declared that the states were preempted or barred from taking such action. While giving the state a small victory in allowing state officers to investigate the immigration status of a suspect with reasonable suspicion, it left little room for independent state action in the area.
Despite President Obama’s orders giving some migrants effective immunity from enforcement (such as the youths that came to be known as “DREAMers”), he actually deported a significant number of illegal migrants. At the time, many of us asked where the line would be drawn in the future, often raising the hypothetical of a president who abandons enforcement entirely or to a large extent.
It took a decade, but that hypothetical seems dangerously close to reality. Mayorkas is carrying out the policies of President Biden, who continues to praise his work and the worst record of enforcement in history. One of the first things that Biden did when coming into office was to seek to shut down policies and construction used to deter unlawful migration. At the same time, both Biden and Mayorkas were widely viewed as supportive of those crossing the border as many Democratic cities declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented migrants pursued by ICE.
Now, even some Democrats are now criticizing President Biden for his lax policies and the failure to do more in securing the border, as hundreds of thousands pour into the country. Most are promptly released, and many are not even asked to appear for eight years at an immigration proceeding.
For the states, desperate times call for desperate measures. For example, Texas recently declared that it was acting unilaterally under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution. That provision reserves the right of self-defense for a state that is “actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”
The current crisis is a practical invasion, overwhelming towns and cities across the country. No state faces a greater danger than Texas. However, “invasion” was clearly meant in the traditional sense of a foreign power or army. Similarly, “such imminent danger” was referencing “such” an invasion.
The southern border in 2024 is, constitutionally, suffering no more an “invasion” than the Capitol riot in 2021 was an “insurrection.” There is a difference between the colloquial and constitutional meaning of such terms.
States have also tried to go to court to enforce these laws in cases like Arizona v. United States and, most recently, in U.S. v. Texas. They have often found the courts closed to them. The courts have denied standing to sue in many cases or else granted sweeping authority (and preemption) over immigration.
That has left many in Congress or the states with few meaningful ways to compel enforcement of the law. This includes provisions written as mandatory “shall” obligations, which have been effectively ignored by the federal government.
The result is that many now see impeachment as the only viable option to force change. However, given Biden’s support for his actions, it is difficult to see how Mayorkas’s removal would alter policies or practices in any respect.
Congress is not blameless in any of this. The court has virtually invited Congress to pass laws giving people greater standing to sue the government. It could also apply more stringent conditions on spending and block confirmations.
Yet this crisis is the result of decades of court rulings expanding executive powers while limiting the ability to challenge those policies. The court’s decisions narrowing standing have been deleterious, limiting those who can challenge unlawful or unconstitutional acts by the federal government.
States such as Texas are absolutely correct that this is a breach of the original understanding with the federal government. The combination of the sweeping preemption by the courts and diminishing enforcement by the agencies has left states as mere observers to their own destruction. It is like watching your house burn down as the fire department works primarily to prevent anyone else from putting it out.
The Biden fire department is claiming that, just as it has the authority to put out fires, it has the authority to let them burn.
The question is whether states have finally reached a point of near-total disempowerment, becoming effective nullities or nonentities in dealing with this overwhelming influx across their own borders. While they can patrol the border, they are powerless to exercise inherent powers to protect their citizens and society. It runs counter to the original federalism guarantees used to secure ratification of the Constitution. States were viewed as partners in our federalism system, not mere pedestrians.
One can see why this looks like a bait-and-switch for states, who were offered something very different when they agreed to abandon the Articles of Confederation. They understood the need for a stronger federal government and that states could not act as separate sovereign powers. States yielded authority to the central government, including interstate matters.
Yet, the Constitution would have likely failed in ratification if they had been told of the degree to which they would become dependent on federal authority within their states.
Clearly, the federal government will continue to determine who enters the country. However, Congress has repeatedly tried to impose limits on such actions through express legislative mandates.
That brings us back to the courts. Members of Congress have been told that they cannot sue to enforce mandatory provisions, while states are told that they cannot sue to secure their own borders. It reduces our system to a mere Potemkin Village, a facade of constitutional powers with little ability to protect them.
The combination of open borders and closed courts will continue to fuel this crisis. If the justices will not allow states to close their borders, they can at least open the courts to allow them greater ability to be heard.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Trump had the border pretty well secured under existing federal law. It stands to reason that if Biden would enforce existing laws the way Trump did, the open-border problem would be largely solved. So . . . all this garbage about new legislation, and a legislative package deal in Congress, is superfluous – perhaps no more than political theater. No new legislation is needed. Maybe the only reason the whores in Congress pretend it is needed – besides being able to prance in front of TV cameras – is that their eyeballs look like dollar signs as they salivate over tens of billions more of taxpayers’ money to go to their pet projects — including enriching their political donors, as usual.
OldManFromKS,
Well said and you are right.
Members of Congress to include some Democrats have said the same.
Allowing up to 5,000 illegals a day, over a 5 day average is just plain dumb.
And tying this to the $60 billion to the Ukraine is BS.
Yeah, I mean, being over $34 trillion in debt, where is this $60 billion going to come from? We’re in a death spiral and the only way to stop it is to (a) stop having budget deficits — i.e., don’t add any more to the national debt — and (b) grow the economy to bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio which is presently at an unsustainable 123%.
The rubber is starting to meet the road. All these warm and fuzzy feelings about illegal aliens is beginning to evaporate because the bill has come due to feed them, house them, police them, take care of their medical needs, and deal with the displaced citizens of whatever city the herd has landed in. Unlike the Federal government, cities like New York, do not have an unlimited budget, and they can not print their own money. The heart of the whole liberal/left establishment is PRETENSE, and has been for decades. It is the same with the whole “blacks are victims of white racism” nonsense. That narrative has been pushed for decades now, and most large inner cities have become overrun with black hooligans, convinced that they are victims of oppression, and they are doing their best to make it up by stealing and killing, etc. The Reality can not be avoided much longer on immigration, civil rights, social justice, and the financial weakness of the country. Not to mention all the war-mongering stupidity. The crash is coming, and I do not think it is going to be pretty. There are too many brain-dead people in the country, and they will not be able to handle the upcoming repression that needs to take place.
Jonathan Turley wrote: I have previously expressed my disagreement with the two articles of impeachment, which present their own inherent dangers to the underlying constitutional standards.
Your articles are generally worth reading, Mr. Turley, but there is also the comic relief of watching you desperately avoid saying the obvious out loud. Just can’t figure out how to split that baby!
What sections of your Constitution say a President or one of his appointed officials are complying with the Constitution and their oath of office by deliberately refusing to enforce the existing laws of the country? Blatantly and repeatedly lying under oath to Congressional oversight committees is perfectly Constitutional? When did that cease being at least a repeated felony committed against an elected Congress?
If impeaching Mayorkas for refusing to enforce existing immigration laws, and repeatedly and openly lying to Congressional oversight hearings that the border is secure is within constitutional standards – as a legal scholar, tell your readers what Constitutional standards allow that behavior in office? Any particular sections of the Constitution that come to mind you would like to share with us?
Or how about trying this approach, Mr. Turley: What would Mayorkas have to do now that he hasn’t done so far that would lead you to write “that behavior does not meet the constitutional standards for what he can and can’t do in office, and now it is Constitutional to bring articles of impeachment”?
Really hard for you to write against your Democrat roots, clearly. And thus my amusement at watching you fart and tapdance around stating the obvious on this and other matters.
Just as when election day arrives and the choice is between Trump and his policy record regarding Illegal Aliens (and the economy) and another four years of Bribery Biden and his policy record… you’ll roll with hopes of another four years of Biden instead of another four years of Trump.
To Old Airborne Dog: You are entitled to your opinion and free to express it. I found your commentary to be disrespectful.
I am not sure about disrespectful, but I think Old Airborne has a valid point or two. If Mayorkas’ compete failure to do hos job is not impeachable, what is? He has not done his job. He is being paid to do a job, and whether thru negligence, incompetence, or sheer willfulness, the only remedy is not in Biden firing him. Congress also has a say. He has, at the very least, betrayed his public trust. From wiki:
“Since 1386, the English Parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” etc.[9]
Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said that “impeachment… was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”[10]
The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and convicting in the Senate is complex, made to be the balance against efforts to remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It was George Mason who offered up the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as “high misdemeanor,” “maladministration,” or “other crime.” Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who “misbehave.” Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved “for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.” As can be seen from all these references to “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offenses. This gives much freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. Constitutional law, by nature, is not concerned with being specific. The courts, through precedence and the legislature, through lawmaking, make constitutional provisions clear. In this case, the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.”
A “Wall” won’t do it. It must be more, it must incorporate the People of the Boarding States.
The Six Mexican States that Boarder the United States of America;
Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Caohila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas
Send Mexico City a message (By Trump) – We the People of the United States are Annexing The Six Mexican States that Boarder the United States of America. as American Territories. Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Caohila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas are now hereby Annexed and under the authority if the U.S.A..
When the Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador refutes the Annexation, then deploy Forces south of the Boarder.
Mexico’s Armed Forces are no match for the US,
Mexico Armed Forces
Active personnel: 411,947 (ranked 18th)
Reserve personnel: 98,653
Budget: USD $11 billion (2021)
United States Armed Forces
military service: 15 million (2021), age 18–25
Active personnel: 1,328,000 (ranked 3rd)
Reserve personnel: 799,500
Budget: $816.7 billion (2023) (ranked 1st)
Citizens of; Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Caohila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas
Will welcome the U.S. with open arms (Compatriots will resist Mexico City).
Declare Marshall Law in the new Territories as a DMZ until a US Federalized system can get organized and Close off the Illegal Trade Routes of Migrants and Contraband.
Bring It On!!!
So how many Republicans were involved in this so-called bipartisan bill? Why wasn’t the House – which passed an immigration bill a year ago — involved in the talks? But (assuming the Senate passes this bill), regular order says they go to conference with the two competing bills in hand. Let’s see what happens
Speaker Johnson was invited to the talks in the Senate, and he chose not to go:
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1754285137502613619
So your link says he chose regular order. OK with me. Who would be against doing things openly and transparently and taking the time it takes to work coherently on the issues (another month or two)
@Dennis
I’d love to know that too, as the bill is a slap in the face to anyone with a brain over the age of 40. It is disgusting. It is an insult. It is once again, dems trying to make their tyranny palatable. Give us a break. The dems are a cancer, and they seem to think we all have amnesia. Enough. Vote. Them. Out. changing the language does not change the guts. Got o he**, modern DNC. Never voting for dem ever again. The sad thing to me is they know a large portion of their constituency is that stupid and will show up to the polls or their mail and check the box with a yawn, so long as their credit card still works. This. Is. Madness.
The House Republicans have again lost the “messaging” battle-*. Did they want asylum law changes or did they want Biden to enforce existing immigration law or did they want to rein in spending being wasted in the Russian Civil War? All three are wildly different issues.
_____________
*Granted they begin with a hand tied behind their back by going on media outlets like This Week with Mickey Mouse and then letting Mickey interrupt them 15 times without ever pointing out that Mickey is a vicious partisan Democrat. The GOP should boycott all ABC reporters and TV shows until Mickey, the head of ABC News and Iger himself all profusely apologizes to Vance
The money going to Ukraine is not wasted: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/12/fiona-hill-ukraine-putin-00131285
Did you read the article you linked to? It says all the hundreds of billions spent already has lead to a stalemate and that the situation is exactly as it was when the whole thing began. It also says that not only the U.S, but Germany, Poland and others in the EU are asking whether this makes sense (it also claims that those other countries gave more money than the U.S., which I find hard to believe). Her argument is basically “But Raytheon gets the money.”
(The article appears to have been written 2-3 months ago and makes no mention of all the theft of U.S, funds by Ukrainians discovered recently)
The solution is an indefinite moratorium on any type of new visas and naturalizations. Stop issuing student visas to people from countries who are US enemies. Use the ensuing period to process the backlog of visa and citizenship, and asylum cases. Immediately track down and deport illegal aliens, visa scofflaws, and criminals, including those sitting in US prisons. Doesn’t matter who they are, or where they’re from. Shut down the Confucius Institutes and any other agency peddling in espionage and subversion masquerading as a forum for “cultural interaction.”
Ratchet immigration laws back to the point where the only people who get visas or are granted citizenship are those who qualify as a “value add” to the US. No more “anchor babies.”
Once the dockets are clear, and the only people here are ones entitled to be here, lift the moratorium.
mistressadams made this claim! The solution is an indefinite moratorium on any type of new visas and naturalizations.
Now that is a heavy lurch into the ridiculous. It’s a fascinating idea: if we stop accepting legitimate immigration applications from those going through the years long (and expensive) scrutiny to become lawful immigrants – that is the solution that will stop Obama’s Third Term from allowing the 10+ million Illegal Aliens they invited to come here from entering the country.
And if we (somehow or other) cease naturalizing law abiding citizens who have been living here and obeying the laws of their new country for the specified number of years to qualify for citizenship – that is the icing on the cake to this solution for Obama’s Third Term ensuring their are open borders to the criminals, terrorists, and economic welfare cases that are coming here for the government soup kitchen in a brown paper envelope.
Populism and populist emotional theology doesn’t always live in the same house as rational thought. You can deport illegal aliens, criminals, etc… but even that isn’t enough to be a solution when Bribery Biden and the Soviet Democrats are going to keep the borders wide open for as long as possible to allow in millions of Replacement Soviet Democrat Voters.
You can enforce already existing immigration laws without dropping your guts that we have immigrants who follow our laws, apply, and come here legally.
The courts are reflective of the populace.
As usual, this is another time wasting discussion at the wrong end of the donkey; because, nobody has learned money sent outside our borders never works. Just lay down a series of agent orange derivatives, from drones, and these walking tours would end.
1. Watering eyes!
2. (Fifty yards deeper) Projectile vomiting!
3. (Fifty yards farther) Explosive diarrhea!
4. (Fifty yards away) Cargo containers! – To transport them, one mile across the border, to be released.
5. Rinse and repeat!
Dear Prof Turley,
‘There are no [Red} border states, there are no [Blue] immigrant sanctuary states – there is only the United States.’ ~ Candidate Obama
Idk how much ‘standing’ Obama has with this Court, but that seems the fundamental issue between president Biden’s blue-coat Feds and great state of Texas’ Red Leg Raiders. Who’s in charge down there!
I suspect the SCOTUS’ virulent ‘state righters’ will join with the untrammeled ‘Unitary Executives’ and .. . kick this down the road.
In any case, don’t think ‘walls’ or other fixed fortifications will solve the problem(s). Where there’s a will there’s a way. Coming and going.
Hard to get a handle on the numbers flocking to America. Much less why. And it’s important to know ‘why’ ~ just because Joe Biden says “we’re the greatest G0d-damn economy in the world” don’t make it so. On the contrary, Joe Biden could be writing checks bank account.
Nor can one overlook the role of the U.S., Joe Biden in particular, long involvement in these impoverished, war-torn countries south of the border from whence the vast majority of pilgrims now flee in record numbers. We’ve been destabilizing countries down there since Eva Peron and Iran-contra. .. and no nation is an island, especially in the 21st century.
*Within the bounds of wise discretion, it used to be coming to America was considered a good thing. For all concerned.. . what happened?
edit. Joe Biden could be writing checks [on Hunter’s] bank account.
“Open Borders and Closed Courts: How the Supreme Court Laid the Seeds for the Immigration Crisis”
– Professor Turley
____________________
The Supreme Court laid the seeds for the extirpation of the Constitution and the incremental implementation of the principles of communism by failing to support the Constitution in 1860.
The status quo of America is not that of a “shinning city on a hill,” but that of a mushrooming Obamaesque third-world s—hole.
Secession was not prohibited and was fully constitutional.
Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” in favor of communism, commended by Karl Marx himself, must have never taken place.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“They consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Letter of Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
___________________________________________________
Extant, legitimate, and constitutional immigration law must have been enforced.
American freedom persisted for a mere 71 years.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
I wonder if the Romans were having this highfalutin conversation as the lowly leather tanners were screaming that the barbarians were invading Rome.
The government is asking citizens to “Just accept it. We have a plan.” No we do not.
Even the Enviro Weenies are suspiciously quiet about the environmental effects of an escalating population numbers. Should we have 400 million , 800 million? A billion? Are biggest cities are falling apart in today’s meager world of 340 million mini polluters.
We have unknown numbers of anchor babies being born daily. They are the first link in the chain “invasion”system. The government cares more about their families than ours.
We have turned into a nation that lives by random choices and long winded arguments that accomplish nothing. We may not collapse, but we will wish we did.
Always the quantitative aspect of unchecked immigration is ignored. This is because the Left is populated by angry dreamers. Absence of quantitative input is symptomatic of overgrown idealism. Simply put, the Left today is bursting with propagandists. Angry adolescents, all of them.
Jonathan: What seems to be lost in your column about immigration is not about the courts but the refusal of the MAGA Republicans to come up with a solution. On Sunday a bi-partisan Senate released a 300-page bill to address border security with new tools–that even include closing the border. What’s not to like about the bill?
House MAGA Speaker Mike Johnson doesn’t like the bill. Why? Because he is carry DJT’s water who sees the bi-partisan Senate bill as a threat to his chances of re-election because it would give Joe Biden bragging rights in this year’s election. MAGA Mike made the rounds of the weekend talk shows falsely claiming he was left out of the Senate discussions. Not true. GOP Senator James Lankford, one of the chief negotiators on the border bill, says he invited Johnson to participate but Johnson refused saying the House had its own bill (HR-2) that has already been rejected by the Senate.
Now if MAGA Mike was seriously interested in passing border protection legislation he would want to work with the Senate on a bill that could get approval by both houses of Congress. Nope. He wants to blow up any deal because that serves the political interests of DJT. MAGA Mike reeks of hypocrisy!
Dennis McIntyre/Biden’s Baghdad Bob assigned here, sprang into action to defend his employer, Bribery Biden and The Soviet Democrats with the inevitable ‘BBBUBUBTTTT…. Muh Trump!’:Jonathan: What seems to be lost in your column about immigration is not about the courts but the refusal of the MAGA Republicans to come up with a solution.
It’s Dennis/Baghdad Bob’s latest version of The Soviet Democrat Big Lie: The only reason there are another TEN MILLION Illegal Aliens on American soil during Bolshevik Barack’s Third Term is because of Trump and MAGA Republicans. It had nothing to do with The Big Guy first inviting them to come and then reversing every single policy Trump put in place that was keeping most of them out.
It has nothing to do with Bribery Biden and Mayorkas ordering the Border Patrol NOT to enforce immigration laws and to act as Walmart Greeters for their invited Guest Democrat Voters. It has nothing to do with Soviet Democrat governors and mayors telling the world Illegal Aliens were welcome in their sanctuary states and cities, and they were willing to ensure their taxpayers funded them handsomely.
And of course The Big Guy, Bribery Biden, can’t do anything about it. Dennis McIntyre/Baghdad Bob has been dispatched here to tell us his employer, The Big Guy, can’t do anything about it because of MAGA Republicans. Bribery Biden can’t simply tell the Border Patrol to resume enforcing existing immigration law. He can’t use executive actions to restore Trump’s executive actions that were stopping the flood of Guest Democrat Voters.
The only solution according to the Soviet Democrats and their feckless, lying apparatchiks is an amnesty similar to the one Reagan fell for (remember the promises they made to secure the border if only they got that amnesty). Because America really needs gang members and economic welfare seekers to build a better America – or to become millions of Official Democrat Voters to fundamentally change America.
MAGA Mike reeks of hypocrisy!
An amusing character analysis from our resident Soviet Democrat apparatchik and pathological liar Dennis McIntyre/Baghdad Bob. The Big Guy’s White House Spokesliar, Cringe Jean-Pierre is even more believable.
Dennis McIntyre/Biden’s Baghdad Bob assigned here, sprang into action to defend his employer, Bribery Biden and The Soviet Democrats with The Soviet Democrat Big Lie: This is because of MAGA Republican politics, not about Soviet Democrats politically burning the country down to import Replacement Soviet Democrat Voters to stay in power
As the Soviet Democrats’ Apparatchiks have been gloating since Bolshevik Barack threw the border open and ceased enforcing existing immigration laws, “Illegal Alien demographics are our destiny”. What is happening now under Obama’s Third Term/The Big Guy, is not an accident.
Does anyone doubt that “demographics is destiny” is the reason the Democrats have become Bolshevik Barack’s Soviet Democrat open borders party? Refuse to fulfill the promise to secure the border in exchange for Reagan’s amnesty. Then Let in an additional 20 or 30 million people, grant them amnesty, have them give birth to U.S. citizens, and then count up the votes. All they needed to do was flood the country with Latinos while demanding another amnesty… sooner or later there would be a time when Republicans would cave and give them their new voters.
Our Open Border Policy Is Not an Accident
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/open-border-policy-not-accident
For Democrats, it’s not just ‘demographics as destiny’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-democrats-its-not-just-demographics-as-destiny/2015/11/28/199d3a18-9539-11e5-a2d6-f57908580b1f_story.html
If Ennis McIntyre/Baghdad Bob didn’t have Soviet Democrat dog whistle lies to regurgitate here on command… he’d have nothing to write.
And what’s with the salutation “Jonathan:” at the start of every single post he’s paid to put up here?
Are we also supposed to believe that he enjoys a close, first name basis friendship with Professor Turley, as well as believe whatever he posts here on command?
Ted (Hic) Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did a border deal.
Before the ink was dry, the democrats reneged on the deal and reopened the border. Democrats as a political class play for keeps and cannot be trusted to keep their promises.
‘Build The Border Wall’ Americans Once Again Tell Biden: I&I/TIPP Poll
https://issuesinsights.com/2024/02/05/build-the-border-wall-americans-once-again-tell-biden-ii-tipp-poll/
If you build a 50ft tall fence, they will build a 60ft tall ladder!
Another Anonymous Coward posted a strawman: If you build a 50ft tall fence, they will build a 60ft tall ladder!
Yeah, walls and fences obviously don’t work for American prisons, the mansions of The Rich Don’t Pay Their Fair Share Soviet Democrat billionaires, didn’t work when the Berlin Wall stood… and of course the North/South Korea fencing is a failure due to ladders. Ditto Egypt’s Egypt-Gaza fence is a massive failure and the world is watching tens of thousands of Gaza Arabs armed with ladders pour across that border into the welcoming arms of their fellow Arab Muslims.
Clearly, the only workable solution is to just announce to the world that there is nothing between getting on the American government soup kitchen than an imaginary line on the ground between Mexico and America. No ladder required!
Mr. Turley, In order to believe Mayorkas impeachment does not have just cause is to disregard Article VI Clause 2 and 3, as well as Articles II Section 3.
There has not been a Constitutional Amendment to Article VI nor Article II that gives the President any authority to disregard enforcement of laws, nor does the President have the authority to make laws or regulations to implement his policies.
The President Constitutionally is very limited in his authority. Most requires consent the Senate. However the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. This requirement is absolute.
Biden and Mayorkas are refusing to execute the constitutional immigration laws we currently have. In doing so they are committing felonies according to title 8 Section 1324 The law is clear in stating 1 (a) “Any person who” violates (A) (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)”. The punishments in (B) range from imprisonment of five year to life for each alien, depending on the part or parts of (A) violated.
Biden nor Mayorkas are above the Constitution or the laws derived from it.
As for the Supreme Court and our inferior courts, they are required to be the Guardians of our Constitution. They are all required to support THIS CONSTITUTION as Article VI makes clear and absolute.
We have seen many violations of our Constitution by the Supreme Court in recent years. Justice, Sotomayor refusal to grant a stay in favor of Texas protecting its border with razor wire is a clear violation of Article I Section 10, Clause 3. We also see the Supreme Court refuse a stay for affirmative action happening in the military. The Supreme Court ruling on the Covid jab, that it was unconstitutional to mandate, said jab, unless you were a first responder, in the medical field, or the military. Our constitution is simple. All are equal under the law. It is easy to comprehend the simple concept, that if it is unconstitutional for one person, it is unconstitutional for all persons.
The Supreme Court has Betrayed the people by not Being the guardians of the constitution by supporting “this constitution” as required of them in article VI.
As for your assertion this is not an invasion, you couldn’t be further from reality. The invasion is armed, just not with conventional arms. We see the death caused by the invaders everyday. More than 100,000 people, according to government sources died from fentanyl overdose last year. The fentanyl is being supplied by China to the drug cartels, and those cartels use, the people who cross illegally into our country to smuggle it. Do you not consider the murder of 100,000+ Americans with a drug so lethal that 1 kg has the potential to kill 500,000 Americans an invasion by our enemies? (statistic from DEA)
We have cartel gangs, set up all over the United States that came across our border illegally with the goal of killing more Americans with lethal fentanyl.
So we’ve established clearly that Biden and Mayorkas are in violation of federal law, and are allowing enemies of the United States, to invade our country join tens of thousands of Americans per year with the potential to kill millions. Both are clearly impeachable.
We’ve also established that none of the three branches of government or follow the constitution as required. Our constitution is absolute if you want to be in one of the three branches of government. The Supreme Court Unan1mous ruling in Ex Parte Milligan (125) states clearly that “they” our Forefathers “ had fought to maintain by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President or Congress or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus”
It’s time to join The people, Mr. Turley, with a Constitutional stand to bring our government back under the Constitution, as it is written, not letting lawyers destroy the clear protections and limits our constitution has set forth.
“There has not been a Constitutional Amendment to Article VI nor Article II that gives the President any authority to disregard enforcement of laws”
Tell Trump. He’s the one arguing at his rallies that Presidents have to have absolute immunity for breaking criminal laws.
Most of the fentanyl that’s coming across the U.S.-Mexico border is smuggled in by citizens through official ports of entry.
Another Cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat Apparatchik posted another one of the Soviet Democrat’s favorite lies to defend Bribery Biden continuing Bolshevik Barack’s wide open southern border: Most of the fentanyl that’s coming across the U.S.-Mexico border is smuggled in by citizens through official ports of entry.
And in other breaking news, Soviet Democrats and their Anonymous Apparatchiks have now confirmed – again – that the laptop allegedly belonging to The Bagman Formerly Known As The Crackhead Kid is indeed nothing but Russian election disinformation.
Yeah… not only do the Soviet Democrats know how much fentanyl is coming over the wide open border versus official points of entry (how do they measure the amount that wasn’t apprehended by either means?) – they also know that the smugglers are almost all American citizens. Hardly an Illegal Alien Mexican, Guatamalan, etc involved at those official border points!
Those Illegal Aliens that the drug cartels smuggled into America in exchange for them helping to move drugs… we’re supposed to believe that once in America they’re going to keep going back and forth across the border through official border points to pay their drug debt to the Cartels smuggling drugs and humans?
re: American
George W. Bush nullified Article VI (Sections 1, 2, 3) when he violated Ronald Reagan’s Torture Treaty – also federal law. Republicans created that legal precedent.
Something recently broadcast…3 days old?…see it to the end…please
https://tuckercarlson.com/the-tucker-carlson-encounter-bret-weinstein-at-the-darien-gap/
Didn’t Trump say Mexico would pay 100% of the costs to build any border wall? Trump sold this idea as no cost to American taxpayers. Did Trump lie about it?
How much did Mexico pay to build the wall?
Typical Turley BS. He blames courts for enforcing the Constitution that says that federal authority is supreme and blames Congress for not overturning that rule INSTEAD of blaming Republicans—they could have passed strict immigration laws when they held both houses of Congress and the White House, but didn’t. They could cooperate with Democrats and pass the border security bill hammered out between Democrats and Republicans, but Trump wants to deny Biden another legislative victory, so “Speaker Johnson” declared the bill “dead on arrival “ before he even read it. After all, Hannity needs something to keep harping about night after night. Republicans are liars—they are not interested in helping solve the border crisis— they are only interested in getting and keeping power and they’re using the border crisis as a weapon, instead of doing the job they were elected to do. Current immigration law allows migrants to enter the US and seek asylum—most an entitled to a hearing. Because Republicans won’t increase funding, courts are backed up for months or years. This is a problem Republicans could help solve, but they won’t—-solely because they want power rather than a solution. I just hope most Americans see Republicans for what they really are—wasting resources on phony impeachment investigations that won’t go anywhere instead of looking to solve the border crisis.
re: Gigi
Right on! Sort of like Republicans sabotaging the U.S. Postal Service through funding and regulation, then criticizing U.S.P.S. for not opening properly (after being hamstrung by Congress).
The U.S.P.S. has the worst of both worlds, since it’s both private and government. Republicans created this entire mess.
The law has been the same under Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. Why could 3 keep things under control, but Biden cannot?
Turley,
Are you suggesting that SCOTUS erred?
I’m not sure.
I don’t think that SCOTUS can fix the problem when its one where the POTUS has ignored his oath of office.
Impeachment is the cure or election.
-G
SCOTUS can’t solve this problem without Congress passing a border security bill, which Republicans supported until Trump told them to block it.