Show Notes - Texas Border Crisis: What Republicans Get Wrong About Texas Border Case

Legalese

Feb 16, 2024

Transcript - Texas Border Crisis: What Everyone Gets Wrong About DHS v Texas

Legalese

Feb 16

Read full story

Description

Episode #69

The Border crisis and the debate over what to do about it are some of the most divisive, hot-button issues at present. And when things get partisan and emotional you are bound to see a lot of bullshit coming from every side…. And this issue does not disappoint in the dishonesty and melodramatics. Today we are looking at a couple of these false claims and emotionally driven narratives surrounding he border dispute case DHS v Texas…

In the interest of fairness, I have decided to address one politically biased legal claim being made about this issue by Republicans and one politically biased legal claim being made by Democrats on the same issue. This video is part one and will be focusing on the Republican false narrative regarding the southern border crisis.

Governor Abbot’s Claims About The Meaning Of Invasion

The claim we are discussing today is one that has recently garnered mainstream support from notable politicians in Texas, as well as the Republican members of both Houses of Congress— Though when it comes to the source of this false narrative, all roads leads back to Texas Governor Greg Abbot. Over the past few years he has repeatedly made claims that the increased flow of illegal immigration across the southern border constitutes an “invasion” and should be treated as such.

It would be one thing if he was using this term rhetorically, however he is making a specific claim that the flow of illegal immigrants constitutes an “invasion” as the word is expressed in the U.S. Constitution in the Guarantees Clause of Article IV, § 4 and the Compact Clause of Article I, § 10, Clause 3

In fact what follows is taken from a public statement the governor released on January 24th, 2024:

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the other visionaries who wrote the U.S. Constitution foresaw that States should not be left to the mercy of a lawless president who does nothing to stop external threats like cartels smuggling millions of illegal immigrants across the border. That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012).
The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self-defense. For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself. That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.

So today on Legalese, we will be digging into the Guarantees Clause and the Compacts Clause to establish whether Governor Abbot’s definition of the term “invasion” as referring to an increase in the number of migrants illegally crossing the border is consistent with the original understanding of the term invasion, as used in the Constitution, according to the meaning that term had to the framers and ratifiers who gave the Constitution legal force.

Teaching An Old Lawyer’s Old Tricks

In trying to sell you his false bill of goods, Governor Abbot went beyond merely twisting the words of the Constitution in an attempt to support his unsupportable argument. He also employed several old lawyer’s tricks that attorneys use all the time to twist the meaning of the law to suit their purposes. These are very clever and subtle tactics that most people would be unlikely to pick up on, without a background in law. I will be showing you what these tricks are and how you can spot them for yourselves in the future.

This will also include a section towards the end of the episode where I teach people how to read a case citation, how to find that citation in its proper case reporter and we discuss the different parts of a legal opinion. I also provide some tips and tricks for how to read and interpret an opinion of the Court that will help you understand how people misuse legal opinions to twist their meaning into seemingly supporting their argument when that is not at all the case.

Links

Arizona v United States, 567, U.S., 387 (2012)

Article IV, § 4 - The Guarantees Clause

Article I, § 10, Clause 3 - Compact Clause

Department Of Homeland Security v Texas

Follow and Support

Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos!

Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more!

Follow

Support

BUY MY NEW BOOK
Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon

Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture.
Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.