Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gman

Yes Texas has a state guard separate from the national guard units. I would guess that Biden’s next move would be to federalize the national guard which he can do and/or send the FBI to arrest the governor and charge him with insurrection. One question is which state units are at the border? Is it national guard or Texas Guard? If national guard then there will be no problem regaining control over the park. I suspect the Biden admin will crack down massively. After all he is campaigning on protecting America from MAGA not and invasion. Things could get very interesting very fast.


136 posted on 01/25/2024 10:10:32 PM PST by your other brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: your other brother
Biden’s next move would be to federalize the national guard which he can do and/or send the FBI to arrest the governor and charge him with insurrection.

That will fail.

Twenty-five states support Gov. Abbott and Texas. Biden cannot arrest them all.

If we take James Madison's word in his Federalist essays, it's the federal government that's gone insurrectionist, not the states. It's the states that must band together to stop Biden's rogue administration.

James Madison, Federalist #46:

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

This next part is the reason why the Framers made the Senate appointed by the state legislatures and not by popular vote.

...the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States...

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole...

The Senate made up of ambassadors of the states would have been instructed by their respective legislatures to resist a despotic President and work with their allied states to stop him.

A post-17th Amendment Senate would be useless today. In Madison's words, a post-17th Amendment Senate is the realization of Madison's rejection that "it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government." That is exactly what happened after the 17th amendment was ratified.

This means that the Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive have turned against the sovereignty of the states, making the federal government the insurrectionists. It is up to a coordinated resistance by the states to put the federal government back into its box, as Madison laid out in Federalist #46.

-PJ

142 posted on 01/25/2024 11:28:24 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson