Texas ordered to remove Rio Grande floating barrier, Gov. Greg Abbott promises to appeal

The New York Post ^ | 09/06/2023 | MaryAnn Martinez

[Bob434]

[[Texas needs to erect stuff on Texas State land...]]

They did and biden ordered it welded open

[Irish Eyes]

Federal Judge Arrested for Usurping the rights of a Free State, held without bail, looking at Life Sentence...

We can only wish.

[Elsie]

Just say no

[Elsie]

without prior approval from the feds.

Some kind of response needs to be formulated that ends with the words: "and the horse you rode in on."

[Elsie]

...or at least 33 years cause the evidence PROVES he was trying to overthrow the state REPUBLIC of Texas.

[SuperLuminal]

Texas will bend the knee after some huff & puff...

[Elsie]

then don't GO to court!

You FEDS want the balls?

Come and take them!

[Elsie]

Then roll the balls up on the north bank of the river and connect them to the powerlines.

[Elsie]

BINGO!

[ProtectOurFreedom]

“…didn’t get the necessary permission from the International Boundary and Water Commission”

You’ve got to be kidding me. A U.S. federal judge somehow finds it against U.S. law for a sovereign US state to not get permission from some NGO commission to deter a massive invasion force.

[Elsie]

...does the state have the right to protect itself.

Since single individuals do; I'd suspect a group of individuals have the same right.

And if that group of individuals live in a STATE; I'd imagine the STATE has the same rights as the group and the individuals do.

But, what do I know; being deplorable and all.

[Pres Raygun]

Section 8 of Article 1 gives Congress supremacy over the states to regulate commerce both domestic and international trade on navigable waters. But this barrier is not inhibiting navigation on the US side of the Rio Grande and I am unaware of any law passed by Congress that would prohibit such a barrier to international traffic or trade on the Rio Grande except at ports of entry. The only ports of entry on the Rio Grande are located at bridges, which are not blocked by this barrier.

[grey_whiskers]

[TigersEye]

Leave the barrier where it is. Let the judge go out and remove it.

[dfwgator]

Let them come enforce it.

[bantam]

Ignore this black robe turd!!!!!!!!

[BarbM]

he constitution does not give states the right to interfere it’s navigable rivers, that is purely in the purview of the federal government..
______________________________
True the Rio Grand is a river, but at this location, it doesn’t boarder another State.

What does the Constitution say about US Sovereignity?
Can a state protect its boundary against a foreign invasion?

[TigersEye]

The Rio Grande River does not meet the legal criterion of a Navigable Water by Federal statutes.

PART 329—DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Authority: 33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.

§ 329.4 General definition.

Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

[Round Earther]

It might be difficult to argue that the Rio Grande has never been used to transport foreign commerce.

[Theo]

Yes, please.