New Bill Would Give States the Right to Sue Federal Government Over Illegal Alien Invasion

Red State ^ | 02/19/2024 | Mike Miller

[bobbo666]

Bill not needed at all.

Fed actions resulting in personal harm can be sued in state court. Go after individuals, not job titles.

E.g., a Uni a couple of years ago supported a totally racist attack on a local bakery — ‘cause a bakery employee stopped a black shoplifter. A Uni officer came out and spoke in support of the lie. Bakery replied with a suit naming the Uni officer. Bakery got millions.

In state court the jury will be on your side if you are reasonable. You just need funding to fight the appeal — but, by that time the damage to the Fed is done.

[Does so]

This, after killing 17 Americans...

[bravo whiskey]

That would be sue the taxpayers.

[libertylover]

Would this bill pass Constitutional scrutiny?

[Dr. Franklin]

The feds control the borders, that is one of the few powers granted to it in that pesky constitution thingy. Why are they not developing work around, like the democommies do for things that they don’t like?

Right, they need to pass a law giving the states authority to step in and erect border walls and fences when the federal government does not create a lawful entry point at that location. The law needs to require the border patrol to "rescue" illegals using a limited number of access points. With helicopters and boats, the border patrol doesn't need open access to the Rio Grande, which isn't much of a river. Congress needs to close that loop hole to the feds. If POTUS doesn't follow the law, the states would have a remedy. Just giving states the right to sue the federal government doesn't really address the problem.

[usurper]

We need to get this bill passed.

Not so fast, I have insight into the demonic DNC mind.

What would stop the current administration from quickly settling with dem states thereby federalizing bailouts to their friends and voters? Red states would be dragged through years of legal action before they ever recovered a dime if ever.

They do the same thing with environmental groups. Its a money pump and a way to establish president without passing legislation.

[joe fonebone]

I see you are trying to offer solutions.
A law can’t be passed that is against the constitution.
Period.
The constitution can be amended, but this is virtually impossible.
For the record, over 25,000 amendments have been proposed for the constitution.
Only 27 have made it all the way.

[Dr. Franklin]

I see you are trying to offer solutions. A law can’t be passed that is against the constitution. Period. The constitution can be amended, but this is virtually impossible. For the record, over 25,000 amendments have been proposed for the constitution. Only 27 have made it all the way.

The constitution is silent on immigration, and the right for the federal government to control it is a judicial conclusion of implied federal powers. In the recent SCOTUS case, Texas was not precluded from placing barriers on the border. Texas just couldn't stop the Bidet Regime from disturbing those barriers. Congress can get involved and prohibit the feds from disturbing state barriers that are not located at specified locations, BUT we can expect Slow Joe to veto such legislation. It's worth passing the law just for political reasons to compel that veto. If it were to pass, then SCOTUS can decide whether or not the "unitary executive" theory prohibits Congress from limiting executive power in this way. SCOTUS decides that issue not some guy on chat forum online.