This is the correct ruling and it is not even close.
The Rio Grande is a navigable river under the laws of the United States. It is a long norm, upheld by many judicial rulings, that the Federal Government has absolute control of Federal Navigable rivers and States can do NOTHING, without the PRIOR consent of the Federal Government.
Texas had zero legs to stand on in this case.
Federal authority over Federal navigable waters is long undisputed.
Appeal it all the way to SCOTUS.
Of course, in the end itās just a political football. Itās just 1000 feet of barrier. Not even a quarter mile.
Leave it in place and keep the spotlight on it through each appeal. Biden wonāt protect us, so each entity needs to start protecting him/her/itself. Make it a campaign issue, a media issue, a national security issue. Couple it with all the lib-city whining about being āoverrunā by a hundreds getting bussed there, while Texas is forced to absorb tens of thousands.
Biden is the issue. His corrupt administration is the issue. His abandonment of US sovereignty is the issue. The porous border is the issue.
Not a string of barrels floating where the depth of the water is less than 2 feet deep.
"The buoys themselves cover just a small fraction of the river around Eagle Pass. They cover 1,000 feet ā less than one-fifth of a mile. The stretch they cover is about 18 inches deep. "
It is the correct ruling.
The exec branch never should have filed the case
(really bad move to file the case)
but once the exec branch took that stupid move the judgeās hands were tied.
Whoever decided to file that case should be thrown out of office and his boss should too.
It doesnāt matter if they were 1 INCH long.
It doesnāt matter if they were 1 millimeter long.
TEXAS CANāT PLACE THEM THERE, PERIOD.
Congress must affirmatively authorize ANYTHING that obstructs a navigable river.
The fact that the Federal Government is not doing its job on immigration is irrelevant to this case.
The only thing that matters is the law on Federal navigable rivers.
Oh?
A baby is playing a game and hits me in the face.
I am not forced to have the child arrested and prosecuted.
I am not forced sue the child.
(This btw is exactly precisely how sanctuary cities work. NYC cops can know someone is here illegally violating immigration laws and it is NYCs choice not to pursue the matter.)
Iāll just repeat where I stand on this:
Hiding bad policy behind the letter of the law is bogus.
āNavigable riverā is only technically correct. That makes it sound like barges and tankers are getting obstructed. Itās 18 inches deep there. And Iām sure the canoes and rowboats that might be floating around there can successfully navigate around it.
But yes, letās keep the spotlight on this administrationās fault here so that Congress finally might authorize something.
Agreed on all points.
Of course the Biden administration freely and of its own choice
decided to file this suit,
and the Biden administration will freely and of its own will decide to keep fighting it.
That is a choice they had and itis a choice they will take.
(Biden will win in SCOTUS tho.)
āNavigableā.
Lol right.
Pull the other one.
1
a
: deep enough and wide enough to afford passage to ships
navigable waterways
b
: capable of being navigated
navigable terrain
Words have definitions. Maybe the government would due better to actually follow the law.
Right. Because the politics of it relies on a misapplied law and not whatās actually best for the country.
Does that mean all the barges and riverboats navigating the Rio Grande can continue their journeys in spite of the buoys?
And yes, anything that draws light on the disaster at the border needs to be made public.
18" is not navigable
Oh, so not so. When the state fails, somebody must act.
If you want to prove a law bad, enforce it strictly.
ānavigableā is just a term of convenience.
The legal definition is
The only navigation going on there is illegals crossing the River and fouling cities and states. I find that not āconvenientā.
Keep the border situation in the news as much as possible. If the courts rule against Texas, so be it.
And floating buoys are not the same thing or category as bridges and docks.
I know.
According to you, but not according to our Constitution and a Stateās reserved power to protect itself against an invasion.
The Biden Administration is asserting the State of Texas is in violation of section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. Ā§ 403. Let us keep in mind the Act in question is alleged to be authorized and in pursuance of Congressā authority to āregulate commerce with foreign nations . . .ā But the authority granted to Congress to āā¦ regulate commerce with foreign nations . . .ā was never intended to, nor does its text remotely suggest, the State of Texas is forbidden by the power granted to protect its immediate and adjoining water ways from a flood of unwanted foreign nationals invading its borders.
SO, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR GRANTING CONGRESS REGULATORY POWER OVER COMMERCE ?
One purpose for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states is found in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.
āNo Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.ā
A primary intention for which the power to āregulate commerceā was granted to Congress was to guarantee free trade among the States and this is documented in Federalist Paper No. 42:
āA very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.ā
The power to regulate commerce among the states was in fact intended to prevent one state from taxing another Stateās goods as they passed through its borders or interfering with the movement of such goods.
Additionally, as previously pointed out, the power to regulate commerce also grants an oversight to Congress in a specific and clearly identified area__ a Stateās inspection laws:
āNo state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing itās inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.ā
It is sheer insanity, or an intentional act of tyranny, to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question, to be delegating authority to Congress to subjugate the various Statesā original authority to protect their borders from an unwanted invasion of foreign nationals. The power delegated to Congress to regulate commerce has been so distorted and abused over the years, that it is time for our Supreme Court to expound upon the intended and limited authority agreed to by the States and people therein, who gave their consent to the clause in question.
JWK
"Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.ā ___ UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
Not sure if that was sarcasm, or a serious question.
The water where the buoys are is less than knee deep. No barges and riverboats are going there.
The official definition from the Code of Federal Regulations:
Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.
Once navigable, ALWAYS NAVIGABLE, at least as far as Federal law is concerned. The Rio Grande was used by low draft paddleboats in the 1800ās, for most of the distance from the ocean to El Paso.
The map shows Federal navigable rivers superimposed over an 1860 map of counties.
Congress has, in a few cases, by statute, released portions of rivers and certain other waterbodies from the restriction of being navigable waters. However, they have not done so with the Rio Grande, so all of the river that was EVER navigated in commerce remains a navigable river, even if it is completely impossible to navigate it with modern ships. Only Congress, by law, can release that restriction.
If it gets the Supreme Court, I can assure you that the Supreme Court will quickly tell Texas to ā ā ā ā off.
Under what constitutional assigned duty was the Rivers and Harbors Act passed?
