Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] • 8 pts

Under Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 of the constitution, Abbott can declare an invasion and keep troops (armed forces aka an army.) Normally, member states are prohibited from keeping their own army. Abbott has used that clause to essentially call the Texas National Guard a state's army.

The National Guard isn't necessarily an army for the state, but troops offered to the nation under the name of the state. They typically provide in-state humanitarian services (disaster recovery, etc.) but under his declaration they are now an army.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Except when the government decides you can't have firearms. It's the national guard that goes door to door. Just like they did in New Orleans, post Katrina.

Calling up militia would be a better option, in my opinion.

Considering the amount of hardware that has been sent to ukraine and israel, the civilians are likely to be better equipped.

[–] • 1 pt

Probably, but he's "following the rules" at the moment.

[–] • 3 pts

The Constitution allows the states to tons of things to keep the feds in check. (((For some reason))), the states don't use the tools at their disposal since we let the masses elect senators. It's weird.

And now that the feds give the states money for doing certain things (the states get (((highway funds))) for seat belt laws and 0.08 BAC gets you DUI/DWI), the states, largely, have no incentive to do anything to put (((the feds))) in check.

[–] • 2 pts

Here is a lawyer that does a pretty good job explaining the situation https://rumble.com/v494mux-abbott-lays-it-on-the-table-fbi-violates-rights-another-police-shooting-cho.html

[–] • 1 pt

Is there a TL:dw? I'm not inclined to watch a 3 minute video, and certainly not a 3 hour video.

[–] • 3 pts
  • Abbot declares that the illegals are invading.
  • Under the constitution, invaders negate a state's prohibition on having it's own army.
  • Texas declares the Texas National Guard to be an army for the state of Texas.
[–] • 2 pts

Yeah he takes awhile to get into it. Basically, the scope of the current supreme Court action was to strike down the injunction that was in place to stop the federal government from removing the razor wire; the federal government is allowed to do whatever they were originally going to do, Texas cannot stop them. The court case has not been heard yet, but the supreme Court says there shouldn't be an injunction. The governor declared an invasion, and the term invasion seems like it hasn't been defined by any case in the US yet. The state of Texas has invoked a provision in the US constitution to secure their own borders during an invasion. This will likely have to go through the courts where they will have to define invasion and decide what the founding fathers meant with the provision in the constitution. We are probably two years out from the US supreme Court weighing in on this, but in the mean time a whole bunch of craziness will probably take place

[–] • 0 pt

Thank you very much. You did the heavy lifting so others don't have to.

[–] • 0 pt

Even "they can do whatever they want" is a step too far. The courts haven't decided if they can do it or not. The SCOTUS just overruled the preliminary injunction, which says to stop doing it until the case is decided. It's really at the "you can fuck around and find out" stage for the feds. The courts can still come back, after a trial on the merits, and say what the feds were doing is illegal.

[–] • 1 pt

1000% of everything is fake and gay.

[–] • 1 pt

No Texas is not leaving the union

[–] • 1 pt

Big win for Balkanization predictors. The momentum will probably get so strong that even Abbot and Trump can't stop it, should the feds try to force the status quo.

[–] • 1 pt

The feds will try to "federalize" the state guard, as they have a right to do. When I was active even Guard guys had to do a short tour over seas. Maybe a month max while we may be there for a 6 month tour or longer. The problem here is, since the feds aren't fulfilling their obligated duties and are in fact facilitating an invasion meant to replace the population, the individual state has every right to defend itself. So when they try to federalize them, they will disobey. Could go full on civil war at that point. Maybe just another revolution where the leadership class who has betrayed the people and are being blackmailed by the elite, all get hanged, shot, poisoned, etc.

[–] • 2 pts

The feds end up with ALL kinds of problems if they try to federalize the TANG. First, he's very limited on what he can do without the governor's consent. He's limited to either declaring that there is widespread violations of federal law or declaring that the forces are there to enforce civil rights. Both are VERY tenuous. The violations of federal laws one is tough for them, because the most blatant violation is the illegal entry itself. The civil rights one is also difficult, because there is no right to illegal entry.

In any event, as soon as they do, and if people actually report (remember, this is TEXAS NG) then Abbott and Paxton are likely to start a huge media campaign that the orders that TANG troops are receiving are illegal orders and must be disregarded, and enough troops will follow that to foul the whole thing. It only takes about 10% refusal to make the whole force combat ineffective.

The last big hiccup is that Texas also has the Texas STATE Guard, and I know some of those guys. They are all straight up right-wing wingnuts -- because who else are you going to get to come and do essentially National Guard service for virtually no pay just because they don't want to be subject to being federalized? You get a bunch of assholes who are WAITING to get the legal coverage to zap a fed or 50. And that also includes the Air Support Groups,

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Depends on what Tel Aviv says about it. The U.S. is a vassal state of Israel