The adjective “Orwellian” can be overused in political discussions. But how else to describe a situation where the federal government abdicates its responsibility to secure our vast borders, and then states step in to help stop the bleeding only to be told by that same federal government to stop? Is it a good measure that its efforts to help secure the border through a new razor wire barrier will be in vain?

There's only one really appropriate word: “Orwellian.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court voted 5-4, with moderate Chief Justice John Roberts and center-right Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining their liberal colleagues in asking the court to allow Border Patrol agents to carry out slaughter. Supported the Biden administration. Or remove the protective razor wire fence that Texas officials have erected along the besieged Rio Grande. The court's decision is surprising. (Related: Josh Hammer: Let's be honest, the Republican Party is still Donald Trump's party)

In America's federalist constitutional order, both the federal government and the states function as fully sovereign actors operating within their legitimate governing powers. Although the federal government itself was created in the late 1780s by the then-existing states, it was in no position to demand that the states intentionally undermine their sovereignty. This is especially true when the federal government itself stubbornly refuses to ensure the country's territorial integrity, as it has throughout Joe Biden's disastrous presidency.

Article 101 of the Constitution states that both the federal government and the states can exercise full sovereign power within the constitutional order.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 2012 Arizona v. United States Supreme Court case: ” (In the current Texas case, there is no relevant constitutional limit or congressional enforcement.) Later, in another Arizona work, Mr. Scalia continued: He regulates immigration, but There is no doubt about the power of the state to do so. ” (Emphasis added.)

Toward the end, Scalia approached a grand finale. “But the specter that Arizona and the states that support Arizona predicted has come true and is still with us today: a federal government that does not want to enforce its immigration laws as written; It leaves state borders defenseless against migrants who would otherwise be imprisoned.The question is therefore acute: Are sovereign states at the mercy of the federal government's refusal to enforce immigration laws?

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be “yes.” Replacing “Texas” with “Arizona” wouldn't change anything else today.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott's reaction was swift and defiant. On Wednesday, Mr. Abbott released a statement lamenting the federal government's “broken agreements” with multiple states, citing the example of Scalia in Arizona. He formally declared an “invasion” under Article 1, Section 10, Section 3 of the Constitution. Such explicit constitutional provisions reflect the inalienable right of self-defense of sovereign states and are necessarily paramount to any single order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, Texas is building new razor wire fences.

Texas is right to stand its ground. First, the Supreme Court's order allowed Border Patrol agents to remove wires to a narrower extent. There is no word on Texas officials' ability to build new power lines.Second, even if there is was A direct conflict between Texas and the courts, with Texas relying on an explicit constitutional provision to declare an “invasion” and thus asserting an unequivocal right to protect its borders, the Supreme Court's proclamation is also given priority. Finally, unless one mistakenly accepts the illogical (and frankly un-American) premise of judicial supremacy that Supreme Court decisions represent the definitive and comprehensive “law of the land,” We should support Texas' ability to do so. Interpret the Constitution independently. (Related: Terrence P. Jeffrey: Do you think the Border Patrol is understaffed? I have no idea)

Actions like the one taken by Texas are not about provoking the antebellum “nullification” debate and reviving the ghost of John C. Calhoun. Texas' action here approximates “intervention,” a legitimate constitutional concept described by James Madison in The Federalist No. 46. Even beyond legitimate limits, the latter remains advantageous in the means of defeating such infringements. ”

The large-scale invasion currently occurring on the United States' southern border is illegal, immoral, and unsustainable. Its scope is truly unprecedented in our history, and it poses a deadly threat to the nation. God bless Greg Abbott and the great state of Texas. They rightly value their sovereignty and rightly refuse to bend the knee to the most lawless presidential administration in American history.

To learn more about Josh Hammer and read features from other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Copyright 2024 Creators.COM

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.