50
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
50 points (64.9% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1727 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Hmmm... 🤔
"states have a right of self-defense, under Article 4, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution."
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
Article 4, Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
I don't see a) anything there that defines "invasion" or b) grants the states the power to act if the United States chooses not to.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:
"Section 10: Powers Denied to the States
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Again, "invaded".
It's pretty clear from section 10, since it's also speaking of troops, ships of war, and engaging in war that it means MILITARY invasion, not an influx of citizen refugees.
Dictionaries at the time back up that reading:
https://mises.org/wire/what-did-founders-mean-invasion
So if Abbott’s argument is that migrants crossing the border is an ”invasion,” then would the act of loading refugees onto busses and sending them into other states be an “attack?”
Asking for a friend.
Oof - that’s an interesting one. If immigrants constitute an “invasion” in the military sense, then Abbott is committing an act of treason as defined by the Constitution by providing them with transportation services, which would count as levying war against the United States as well as giving aid to its enemies.
I like the way you think.
Well they've also redefined the second amendment to mean "We can own whatever weapon we want" so constitutional literacy is clearly not a strong suit.
Regardless of whether it still has a place in modern society, the Second Amendment was absolutely intended that way. You had literal field artillery pieces under private ownership as a conscious decision. Tycoons were arming whole regiments with personally purchased equipment in our early wars, pretty much up to WW1 and the normalization of large, well equipped and standardized standing armies made the older methods unviable.
Constitutional originalism is an idiot's game for the conservative who wants to return to a past that never existed and the otherwise ignorant. The wealthy slave owners who made up the largest proportion of delegates might have had an occasional worthwile ideal and idea worth keeping but arguments should be made for the present, not the past.