The New Confederacy? - 27 Republican Governors back Texas defiance

 One of the founding fictions is that the states created the national government, not vice versa.  That has plausibility for the thirteen colonies formed on the imperial license of the English Crown and House of commons.  But not the land "purchased" in 1803 from imperial France, nor the 55% of Mexico seized in the U.S. war of conquest.  And of course the entire country was the ancient home of its indigenous peoples.  - GWC

The Red State Governors backed Texas Governor Gregg Abbott's promise

to defy the United States Supreme Court majority 

ORDER IN PENDING CASE 23A607 DEPT. OF HOMELAND SEC., ET AL. V. TEXAS The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application to vacate injunction.

by James Fallows

1) ‘If the Supreme Court gets something wrong…’

This past Monday, the US Supreme Court ruled that the US federal government had jurisdiction over US national borders. And specifically that the Texas National Guard and other Texas forces could not prevent the US Border Patrol from removing razor wire that Governor Greg Abbott had ordered installed at some points along the Rio Grande.

The Supreme Court ruling came with no explanation and was only by a 5-4 margin. It’s a sign of our times that this was even a close call, given longstanding Court rulings that the national government controls national borders. Americans hold passports from the United States, not from Iowa or California. When an international flight lands at Newark airport, inbound passengers deal with federal agents, not New Jersey state police. (For more detail and history, see the note below.¹)

The politics of immigration and “the mess at the border” are long-brewing and increasingly nasty. But the Texas reaction is significant. The Supreme Court said: Here is what you will do. Texas said: We won’t.

That’s oversimplified but not by much. Even more important is what happened next. Apart from Greg Abbott in Texas, there are 26 other Republican governors. All but one of them signed a letter three days ago, supporting the Texas assertion of “Constitutional Right to Self-Defense.” The exception was Phil Scott, Republican governor of Vermont. USA Today made an explanatory map of GOP solidarity. The red states below are where Republican governors are supporting Abbott. (Blue are Democratic; green, appropriately, is Vermont.)

In a piece in Slate, Mark Joseph Stern clearly explained what was so radical about the GOP position in modern terms—and how familiar it was in the long context of “state’s rights.” The title of Stern’s piece distills the argument: “GOP Governors Invoke the Confederate Theory of Secession to Justify Border Violations.” It is worth reading that piece—and then watching an excellent interview Jake Tapper of CNN conducted two days ago with one of these governors, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma.

The essence of the current GOP case is that the federal government has broken the “compact” states agreed to 237 years ago when writing the Constitution. Thus if states don’t now feel that the feds are doing their job, they can take over some federal duties, like controlling the border, themselves.

I encourage you to watch the Tapper/Stitt interview, at this link. Here is a sample of how it goes(with emphasis added):

Gov. Stitt: … We're trying to enforce the law in Texas, which I've been to the border myself. I've sent troops down there in support of Governor Abbott… Everybody knows we cannot allow people into the country illegally…

Jake Tapper: Let's just say for the sake of argument that I agree with everything you said. What Governor Abbott is doing and what you and the other governors who have written this letter are supporting is defying the US Supreme Court.

I wonder if you have any concern that this opens the door for let's say Democratic governors to defy US Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree. Say, on gun rights because they think it's in the interest of public safety even if the Supreme Court says what they want to do is is unconstitutional? [JF note: just the right question from Tapper.]

Stitt: Well, we all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And if the Supreme Court gets something wrong, for example, if they tried to ban and say that we didn't have a second amendment right to bear arms, I think the Constitution supersedes somebody in Washington DC telling us…

The states have a right to defend themselves, the states created the federal government, the federal government did not create the states.