You could call it many things, but it’s not treason.
1 Like
I couldn’t disagree more. Jan 6th.
Negligence. Incompetence. Dereliction.
Not treason.
So the cartels trafficking into the US are unarmed and reports of them firing on border patrol are lies?
If feds try to reopen the borders by use of force against state troopers keeping it closed, would that turn it into an invasion?
I actually don’t think we disagree. Jan 6 was an insurrection, but probably not a rebellion because it wasn’t by force of arms (not counting flag poles, etc.). It was not an invasion in the sense we are discussing about whether the states have the right to police the National borders by excluding federal authorities. I agree with next comment, though.
We disagree. What is going on at the border is most definitely an invasion. Millions of squatters.
3 Likes
Let me make my position clearer. If it is a cross border shooting, that is a purely federal matter. State authorities have no power to fire into another sovereign nation. Migrants crossing the border is a purely federal matter. Once a migrant is committing a state crime, then local authorities have power. We know this from Arizona v US. States gave no immigration enforcement power. Another act of defiance of the rule of law by Abbott and his henchmen.
Clearly wrong as a matter of constitutional law.
Come see. The Federalist Papers are not in the Constitution. Remember Madison’s motives. And his changes.
How about…traitor?
traitor
ˈtrā-tər
NOUN
one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty
one who commits treason
Things that make you say…hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
1 Like
If you think a Federal Court (outside of the 5th Cir) is ever going to hold that States have an independent right to engage in border policing to the exclusion of the federal authorities, you will be sadly disappointed. TX is going to have to be brought to heel on the issue of Federal supremacy on this issue sooner than later.
Fortunately, there is a constitutional definition that overrides Webster and Funk & Wagnells, and precludes your argument.
1 Like
Oh I know no federal court ever will take power from centgov and give to states where the bureaucracy will suffer.
1 Like
There is no argument. I submit. What is the legal definition you would apply to what I’ve labeled as treasonous, traitorous actions?
I think that’s a little glib dismissal of the foundation of American government that federal law stemming from the Constitution overrides the shims of the state. It is clearly established that the enforcement of the National borders is exclusively federal.
And when the exclusive federal refuses to enforce them to the detriment of the state?
Was there a picture of Brandon by the definition???
2 Likes
The line between government authority and individual freedoms is subjective and often debated. In my opinion, it should be drawn where the protection of individual rights meets the collective well-being of society. Striking a balance involves recognizing that certain regulations may be necessary to ensure public safety, health, and fairness, but they should not infringe unnecessarily on personal liberties. Constructive dialogue between Democrats and Republicans is essential to navigate this complex terrain and develop policies that genuinely serve the common good, acknowledging the diverse perspectives within our society.
1 Like
@dderatz …where’d you go? You obviously have a legal background so how would you answer my question?
[quote=“Smyrna, post:39, topic:246281, full:true”]
@dderatz …where’d you go? You obviously have a legal background so how would you answer my question?
[/quot]
Sorry, but I lost interest. Since you ask, perhaps bad policy-making, incompetence, acting on bad advice or many other possible things. Personally, I think it’s a split issue. There is obviously a huge disagreement about how to handle the Souther border problem. On the one hand, the US is obligated by treaty to accept and process claims for asylum. The treaty that requires this has equal footing (as all A&C treaties do) with the US Constitution. One approach was the “remain in Mexico policy,” but that posed human rights concerns since Mexico really didn’t have the ability to house and protect the applicants. Once they have applied, they are our responsibility. Remain in MExico delegated that responsibility to an unwilling Mexico. So Democrats generally opposed that policy. The other approach is to process and parole applicants, since we can’t detain them even under existing law. Republicans oppose that, even though US law and the treaty require it.
A separate issue are the unlawfully present. Although there is better argument here for detention, it is clear that the USBP can’t house that many people, and US law grants them the right to a hearing on admissibility. The legal justification for remain in Mexico is better here, but doesn’t cure the human rights issue. D’s don’t want for the US to appear heartless, and R’s don’t care whether we do or not.
This is all by way of saying that there is a good deal of discretion in the Executive to deal with the problem. Making a choice that proved ineffective is not treason, nor traitorous, because there is no enemy to give aid and comfort to, and is not waging war.
Having given this some thought, and I am not advocating nor in agreement with this, but in the post-Trump era, I don’t think that it is possible anymore for a President to be guilty of treason on the definition of “giving aid and comfort.” Take for example the disclosure of classified information to an actual enemy. We know that Trump revealed classified information to Russian officials/diplomats, but that was met with the response that the President has unlimited authority to determine the handling of classified information. Did that information give “aid and comfort” to Russia? Who knows, but even if it did, a POTUS has the power to make that disclosure, and therefore it can’t be treason.
Similarly, the POTUS has the authority to direct his subordinate officers in the performance of their duties, and the use of that authority is not treason under any definition.
That takes us back to the use of terms like negligent, foolish, misguided, etc., but there is no “legal” definition such as you request.
1 Like
