I can't, for the life of me, understand the constitutional argument that Texas is violating federal law by defending IT'S border with Mexico.
To me, this would be like a cop arresting you for holding down a man a police officer just saw rob a bank. Except worse, because you don't have a duty to protect the bank. The state has a duty to protect it's border, and the feds are not only refusing to enforce the law, but explicitly preventing the National Guard from defending it's border.
If Canada invaded Minnesota, and the Minnesota National Guard started putting up road blocks, and then the USAF bombed those road-blocks because "National Defense is not the jurisdiction of Minnesota", it would be correctly understood to be a ceding of Minnesota to Canada, and a violation of the basic tenets of a Union at all.
I can't, for the life of me, understand the constitutional argument that Texas is violating federal law by defending IT'S border with Mexico.
To me, this would be like a cop arresting you for holding down a man a police officer just saw rob a bank. Except worse, because you don't have a duty to protect the bank. The state has a duty to protect it's border, and the feds are not only refusing to enforce the law, but explicitly preventing the National Guard from defending it's border.
If Canada invaded Minnesota, and the Minnesota National Guard started putting up road blocks, and then the USAF bombed those road-blocks because "National Defense is not the jurisdiction of Minnesota", it would be correctly understood to be a ceding of Minnesota to Canada, and a violation of the basic tenets of a Union at all.