The US Constitution Is a Contract, And It Has Been Broken

a reply to: FlyersFan

I do not think the Constitution is a contract.

It is a sword and a shield. Its purpose is to restrain the gov't and provide all the tools needed for the people to set fourth the government of, for and by them.

Case in point is an executive branch gone rogue. The tools exist to almost immediately remove that regime from power through impeachment via their representatives.

A compact of states can render the federal gov't penniless and powerless within 24 hours should it choose to.


Yet, all of the tools for a corrupt gov't exist as well. For instance if the same compact sided with communism for example, then that would not only be applied but protected.


"A Republic, if you can keep it."

a reply to: Disgusted123

Oh, and as far as the border goes, ASK the REPUBLCANS why we can't get comprehensive border security legislation done. If they are honest, they will tell you they need the border as a political tool. Trump wants them to wait for the same reason. And so, IT AIN'T GETTIN' DONE. I blame them. So please with the whining about the border.

We already know, glad you asked.


It's simple really, and that is that these border bills keep having funding for borders that our not ours (Ukraine).

Thanks for asking and denying ignorance.

originally posted by: Boomer1947
www.texaspolicy.com...

Yeah, I posted that already. That the original meaning of the word 'invasion' would have meant armed forces coming in and trying to do harm. But I also posted that the Constitution is a 'living document' and that the word 'invasion' also means any encroachment or intrusion. Tens of millions of illegals coming and overrunning the country and doing harm by overwhelming it ... that's something the framers wouldn't have foreseen. So can the living document of the Constitution mean the modern term of invasion ... what is happening now?

I'm thinking it could. And that the citizens are paying for a government that agrees to stop invasion, but the government isn't holding their end of the contract, so the contract is broken so the states can secede.

I'm wondering about that.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Boomer1947
www.texaspolicy.com...

Yeah, I posted that already. That the original meaning of the word 'invasion' would have meant armed forces coming in and trying to do harm. But I also posted that the Constitution is a 'living document' and that the word 'invasion' also means any encroachment or intrusion. Tens of millions of illegals coming and overrunning the country and doing harm by overwhelming it ... that's something the framers wouldn't have foreseen. So can the living document of the Constitution mean the modern term of invasion ... what is happening now?

I'm thinking it could. And that the citizens are paying for a government that agrees to stop invasion, but the government isn't holding their end of the contract, so the contract is broken so the states can secede.

I'm wondering about that.

Actually, the Framers could have foreseen the type of "invasion" you seem so concerned about.


Remember the what was to become the country known as the United States, was, at the time of its formation, a mere handful of small colonies, established on this continent by a foreign power. However, this land was not uninhabited when the colonists, from whence arose the Framers, arrived.

There were, in fact tens, even hundreds of thousands of Indigenous People already living here...and had bee for thousands of years. The Indigenous people far Far outnumbered the colonists; and could easily, should they have so desired, completely overrun the "borders" set up as the original colonies, and even the early United States, as it then existed.

The Framers could easily labeled these Indigenous as "invaders", as you might say,


But they did not. It seems the Framers had a entirely different, and more specific, view, of what constitutes an actual invader.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Random poor people illegally crossing the border to get a job does not count as "enmity", or "ill will" against the US. Quite the opposite, actually. Sounds like Texas has spoken on this issue.

Is breaking the law intentionally "good will?"

a reply to: JinMI

Is that what Greg Abbott is doing, intentionally breaking Federal law in the name of "good will"?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No.

But the Biden regime is in fact breaking US law.

If you're once again referring to the 1/4 page SCOTUS ruling, then you'd know that Texas is not a subject at all in it.


I mean, you did read it...right Sookie?

a reply to: JinMI

But the Biden regime is in fact breaking US law.

No they're not. "Catch and Release" has been employed by every President since Reagon, except Trump, and it isn't illegal.

If you're once again referring to the 1/4 page SCOTUS ruling

I'm referring to the Supremacy Clause, that Abbott is pretending doesn't exist, which is what gives the feds the right to go into Texas and cut that razor wire.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Euronymous2625
"Invasion"

Must be election year.

Even many Democrats are calling it that.
Because that's what it is.

Exciting Words flying around. Here's a contrast in accuracy...

"Invasion" - Yes

"Insurrection" - No

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No they're not. "Catch and Release" has been employed by every President since Reagon, except Trump, and it isn't illegal.

8 USC 1324 disagrees with your opinion.

I'm referring to the Supremacy Clause, that Abbott is pretending doesn't exist, which is what gives the feds the right to go into Texas and cut that razor wire.

There we go. Want some ammunition? I agree with that.


Yet it doesn't restrict Texas from doing anything.....

a reply to: JinMI

8 USC 1324 disagrees with your opinion.

What are you going on about?

knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

Oh! You mean what Gov Abbott and Gov DeSantis both did?

Careful with that word "contract", some might begin to think that the only beneficiaries are the ones who signed it....🤔

Wouldn't that suck.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What are you going on about?

Oh, nothing. Just a source that refutes your opinion...

Oh! You mean what Gov Abbott and Gov DeSantis both did?

So we're gonna move goalposts? Okeydokey.

You're going to have to prove reckless disregard. The fact that they were shuttled, fed, housed, clothed and deposited into "Sanctuary Cities" is gonna be a slog, but hey, go for it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did they say TX can't put up razor wire? 😀

Looks like all they said was The Feds can cut it 😀

a reply to: JinMI

Oh, nothing. Just a source that refutes your opinion...

You've flashed a US Code at me, but you've failed to show how the Biden Administration has violated it. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

So we're gonna move goalposts? Okeydokey.

You set yourself up for that. De Santis and Abbott have both violated the Code you posted, according to your logic, by transporting illegal migrant to various other US States.

You're going to have to prove reckless disregard.

Well, that's a 2 way street, then, aint it? But, I don't know how you're going to prove reckless disregard when it comes to Biden, but not Greg Abbott or Ron Desantis.

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did they say TX can't put up razor wire? 😀

Looks like all they said was The Feds can cut it 😀

It's all about the Spremacy Clause, that says the federal law supersedes state law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You've flashed a US Code at me, but you've failed to show how the Biden Administration has violated it. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

That's why I didn't just say it, I provided the applicable statutes. Then you deflected to Abbott and Desantis.....

You set yourself up for that. De Santis and Abbott have both violated the Code you posted, according to your logic, by transporting illegal migrant to various other US States.

I set myself up for you to move the goalposts? What other mind tricks can I play on you that work? It's just more deflection from you away from the Biden regime.

Well, that's a 2 way street, then, aint it? But, I don't know how you're going to prove reckless disregard when it comes to Biden, but not Greg Abbott or Ron Desantis.

Perhaps, it's a could be a good discussion. But what we are talking about here and now is the executive branch of the US gov't breaking our laws.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Did they say TX can't put up razor wire? 😀

Looks like all they said was The Feds can cut it 😀

It's all about the Spremacy Clause, that says the federal law supersedes state law.

I'll repeat my question Kamala...

Did they say TX can't put up razor wire? 😀

Looks like all they said was The Feds can cut it 😀

originally posted by: JinMI
Oh, nothing. Just a source that refutes your opinion...

Not really, that is mostly about the smugglers and not the illegals themselves.

(A)Any person who—
(i)knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

Honestly, it also absolves what Abbott and DeSantis did, since they are government officials but, it also absolves any president that has allowed Catch and Release.

a reply to: daskakik

Not really, that is mostly about the smugglers and not the illegals themselves.

Really, and it's the gov't doing the smuggling......

Honestly, it also absolves what Abbott and DeSantis did, since they are government officials but, it also absolves any president that has allowed Catch and Release.

What you describe is two tiered justice. Please explain it to me how it is not.