this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
448 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3209 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A clash between Texas and the Biden administration over who controls the Texas-Mexico border continues to escalate this week as federal officials once again demanded the state give Border Patrol agents access to a park that is a popular corridor for migrants to enter the United States illegally.

This comes in response to a recent Supreme Court decision, where the court allowed federal officials to dismantle a wire barrier along the border, prompting a legal battle initiated by Texas. Texas argued that this action, aimed at aiding migrants, infringes on state sovereignty and damages Texas security measures.

In response to this decision, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a letter arguing that Texas has a right to control the border and that it supersedes federal government control. Abbott’s accusation that the federal government has breached the Constitution by having “broken the compact between the United States and the States” is almost identical to South Carolina’s 1860 declaration of secession.

Furthermore, Abbott’s letter espouses the fringe theory of constitutional law known as “compact theory,” popularized by Confederate states during the Civil War era and supported by Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If this goes on for a week or even a month, maybe even a few months, ignoring him would probably be fine. The issue is if this continues indefinitely. If states can ignore orders from the executive branch and supreme court rulings as long as they want, from now all the way to election day for example, then they have achieved an effective secession.

We can't have 25 states all ignoring the federal government and, out of those 25, ten plus states sending members of their national guards to illegally block the US border patrol for the next 10 months and claim we having a functionally united country. At that point that block of states is for all intents and purposes is a separate country. I don't see why if they can get away with this indefinitely, which they have yet to do, why they wouldn't ignore the federal government on all issues.

People are saying they do something like this every year. I remember people talking about civil war and sedition for years now. I cannot on the top of my head remember an example where this kind of incident happened in my life time. I do remember studying the Little Rock Nine in school however.

People are saying it's an election year, of course they are doing this stunt. Are half the states in the US going to get to be their own country every two years then? Election years don't mean politicians get to do whatever they want as long as it's to help their party win an election. Biden doesn't have to act reflexively every time Abbott or some other Republican does something like this. But it's going to be pretty strange if 4th of July roles around this year and this is still going on.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

OTOH, if Republicans manage to pass something like a nationwide abortion ban, I will be all for states defying the federal government and blocking federal agents from doing their jobs.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, but the Republicans are controlled by fascists. They will not hesitate to immediately federalize the national guards of blue states because they won't have to worry about elections in a christofascist dictatorship. What the Republicans are doing benefits them now in a liberal democracy. It won't benefit Democrats in an authoritarian dictatorship.

States not complying with a Republican federal government won't be an issue to the fascists, because they will almost certainly add a bounty hunter provision to laws that they can't expect blue states to uphold. Armed conservatives can try to arrest their neighbors they suspect of getting an abortion. The cruelty is the point. Not one person in a blue state might even get sent to prison over a nationwide abortion ban, but women suspected of getting an abortion may find themselves placed under citizen's arrest by bounty hunters with guns. edit: typo