Sometimes the U.S. Constitution isn't that hard to interpret, Randy Weber says. The U.S. House member from Texas says it comes down clearly on the rights of states, and that the Supreme Court's decision to overturn an appeals court ruling was the wrong way to go. The high court issue dealt only with Concertina wire placed on Texas property along the banks of the Rio Grande to act as a deterrent to illegal border crossings.
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision, made possible by the votes of perceived conservative justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, allows U.S. Border Patrol agents to follow their orders from the Biden administration and cut the wire. The ruling was issued without comment, not uncommon when the Court hears emergency applications, The New York Times reported. The case is still being heard at the appeals level.
In the meantime, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott continues his efforts to strengthen the southern border separating his state from Mexico.
The real issue here is state's rights, Weber said on Washington Watch Friday. He bases his argument on the 10th Amendment, which he says clearly states any power not awarded to the federal government by the Constitution belongs to the states.
"The Supreme Court, in my opinion, ruled erroneously. Once again, they got it wrong. No shock there," Weber told show host Jody Hice.
"When the founders of this country, who absolutely put at risk their lives or fortunes and their sacred honor by signing that [Declaration of Independence], they absolutely knew that they were forming a country.
"The federal government didn't form the colonies and the states; the colonies and the states formed the federal government," he argued. "The 10th Amendment [says] all rights remain to the people that are not enumerated in the Constitution. Why doesn't the Supreme Court get that?"
Weber was part of a delegation that traveled to Mexico to meet with President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and some of his cabinet members.
The Supreme Court's decision and Abbott's response has served to heighten the division between the state of Texas and President Joe Biden.
Will Biden federalize the Texas National Guard?
Some have called for Biden to federalize Texas National Guard troops.
"How scary is that?" Weber asked "The governor should tell them, 'Look, nothing personal against y'all, but if y'all come down here this is Texas property, Texas land. We're putting stuff in the river to secure against foreign invaders. We own the product – [and] whether it's wire, balloon barriers or whatever it is, if you put your hands on this, you're stealing Texas property, and we'll put you in jail."
Abbott, in a response to the Supreme Court ruling, wrote that Texas has "constitutional authority to defend and protect itself" – and that the Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety and other Texas personnel are acting on the authority of the "supreme law of the land which supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary."
While the debate continues for supreme authority at the border, Congress also debates a border reform bill.
The House passed its version, H.R. 2, back in the spring, but Biden and the Democrat-controlled Senate have been slow to respond.
Weber said H.R. 2 included four key points: to end the government's "stop, catch, and release" approach to border-crossers; to stop Biden's abuse of parole for those who cross illegally; to build a border wall; and to reinstitute the Trump-era "remain in Mexico" policy. [Editor's note: Under former President Donald Trump, those seeking asylum in the U.S. would remain in Mexico while their case was heard.]
"If you watch what's going on in the news, [Vice President] Kamala Harris, Biden and others are saying this is about Republicans trying to make it a campaign issue because it's getting close to the election," Weber shared.
"Well, that's poppycock … because Biden's been [in office three years] and he's had a chance to secure the border. Instead, he's broken it wide open. He wants illegals here – it's just that simple. They say we [Republicans] want it as a campaign issue, but the truth of the matter is Democrats don't want to stop the immigration," Weber added.
Senate quiet about its border bill
The White House on Friday issued a statement in which Biden urged Congress to pass the compromise bill, but very little detail from the Senate proposal has been made public. Biden's sudden interest in the border is tied to his October request for additional aid for wars in Ukraine and Israel.
He also requested more money for the southern border, but the belief is the president's desire is that illegals be processed into the country more efficiently since he has asked for 1,600 additional asylum officers and 375 additional immigration judges in addition to 1,300 additional Border Patrol agents, according to Fox News.
In a letter to House members reviewed by Fox News, Speaker Mike Johnson said:
"If rumors about the contents of the draft proposal are true, it [the Senate bill] would have been dead on arrival in the House. I am emphasizing again today that House Republicans will vigorously oppose any new policy proposal from the White House or Senate that would further incentivize illegal aliens to break our laws."
"When we were on the border, we talked to a CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] official," Weber described. "He'd been there for 27 years. He said, 'We don't need more buckets to catch the water from the fire hydrant. We need the fire hydrant shut down.' We do not need to give money to Ukraine until we've dealt with our own border. On the other side of that, we love Israel and would love to see the bill passed out to get Israel taken care of."
TX Land Commissioner: Constitution clear when it says 'invasion'
The key word in the discussion about states' rights appears to be "invasion." Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution doesn't spend a lot of time on individual states taking up arms against other nations. It actually lumps the topic into several other actions states cannot take without the consent of Congress. Specifically, Section 10 says states cannot engage in war "unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit delay."
So, there are two points to debate: Is what's happening at the U.S.-Mexico border an act of friendly immigration or of hostile invasion? And if it's an invasion, does it present imminent danger?
Texas Land Commissioner Dr. Dawn Buckingham said on Washington Watch Thursday that Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution is very clear.
"If we are under invasion, we don't have to ask anyone to protect our border," she said. "Since the federal government and the Biden administration are completely abdicating their responsibility to defend and protect our border, then we're just going to jump in and do what we have to do."
The Supreme Court last week voted 5-4 to grant the administration's request to stay a temporary injunction, a move that allows Border Patrol agents to cut through Concertina wire installed by Texas at the border. The decision applies only to the legality of border patrol agents, federal employees, to cut the wire. It doesn't prohibit Texas from putting up new wire.
Former federal attorney says Texas is in the right
"There are those saying Texas is defying the Supreme Court … no, they're not. Right now, Border Patrol agents are free to be cutting the fence, and Texas personnel are free to be setting it back up. Texas is not under a court order here. They can continue to try and secure the border, ironically doing the border patrol's job," Ken Klukowski, a former attorney for the Department of Justice and the White House, told show host Tony Perkins.
Klukowski says polling shows most Border Patrol agents oppose the orders they're receiving from President Joe Biden's administration. Social media posts by their union representatives have a clear anti-Biden slant.
The Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the border, not just an injunction, Klukowski says. When that time comes, he believes siding with Texas should be an easy call.
"In terms of actual immigration policy, only the federal government has that under the Constitution," he explained. "But among the powers reserved to them, states have the authority to secure the property within each of them, to protect their citizens, then set up and enforce criminal code.
"The federal government could be securing the border. If they refuse, people come into Texas and in doing so commit illegal acts? Well, then Texas law enforcement has constitutional authority to enforce Texas law," he said.
The Concertina wire, while preventing illegals from entering the country serves the dual purpose of offering them protection, Buckingham said.
There's no endless line of wire across the entire Texas border. What the existing wire does is channel illegals to safer choke points where they are cross to begin processing by federal agents and are eventually released into the country.
"We're taking access to a dangerous part of the river where loss of life is much more likely and trying to take that off of the paths of the migrants coming across. That's all that Texas is trying to do, and the federal government is actually blocking that," she told Perkins.
