On CNN, legal scholar Steve Vladeck debunks Greg Abbott's claims about Texas' control of the border
Vladeck: “The real problem with Gov. Abbott's position here is that it's basically just a 21st century version of what's called nullification, of the argument that every state can decide for itself which federal laws are and are not constitutional”
Published
Citation From the January 25, 2024, edition of CNN's CNN This Morning
POPPY HARLOW (ANCHOR): If you look at Article 1, Section 10, it says essentially no state shall keep troops in a time of peace unless actually invaded. That is the crux of the argument the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is making, that the Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is making. Do you read the Constitution in this part of it the way they are to make this argument?
STEVE VLADECK (CNN CONTRIBUTOR): No, and there are two big problems with the way that Texas is interpreting this language. The first is I think the obvious one, which is whatever you think of immigration, whatever you think of the influx of unauthorized immigrants along the Texas border, that's obviously not an invasion as the founders intended it. But, Poppy, even if there were ambiguity on that, even if there were doubt, the reason why this clause exists is because at the time the Constitution was written, the federal government was tiny, the federal military was tiny, Congress was out of session most of the year. And, so the idea was that if there was an invasion, British troops from Canada, French troops from Louisiana, Spanish troops from Florida, states could react without having to wait for the federal government. It's not an open-ended invitation for states to take it upon themselves to do what the federal government either isn't doing to their satisfaction or is doing differently.
...
VLADECK: The real problem with Gov. Abbott's position here is that it's basically just a 21st century version of what's called nullification, of the argument that every state can decide for itself which federal laws are and are not constitutional, which federal rules they are and are not bound by. And, you know, folks might be sympathetic to Texas taking that view on immigration, or to California taking that view on environmental regulation. Our federal system is predicated on the idea that no one state is allowed to usurp that kind of claim, that no one state is allowed to basically decide for itself which federal laws they will and won't follow.
There are remedies, Poppy, for those who think the federal government's not doing enough at the border, for those who are dissatisfied with President Biden's immigration policies. Those remedies do not include every state for themselves, otherwise we risk not just a constitutional confrontation, Poppy, we risk a physical confrontation between state and federal officials in and around Eagle Pass. That's something we all should be invested in avoiding.