{"id":2164638,"date":"2024-02-01T04:17:02","date_gmt":"2024-02-01T09:17:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-biden-administration-is-treading-on-texas-sovereignty-not-the-other-way-around\/"},"modified":"2024-02-01T04:25:46","modified_gmt":"2024-02-01T09:25:46","slug":"the-biden-administration-is-treading-on-texas-sovereignty-not-the-other-way-around","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-biden-administration-is-treading-on-texas-sovereignty-not-the-other-way-around\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden Administration challenges Texas’ sovereignty, not vice versa"},"content":{"rendered":"

16<\/div>SHARES<\/span><\/div>

<\/span>Facebook<\/span><\/a><\/span>Twitter<\/span><\/a>

Don’t believe everything\u200d you hear \u2062from the Democrat accomplice media about\u200d Texas’ border security<\/a> efforts. \u2063It’s \u200btime to set the record straight and separate\u200b fact \u2064from fiction.<\/p>\n

First things first: Texas is not defying the Supreme\u200c Court. Last week, the court overturned<\/a> a lower court’s injunction that \u200bprevented\u2063 the federal government from removing\u2062 razor-wire fencing installed by \u200dTexas on the border. Unfortunately, the media coverage of this decision and Texas’ response was filled with errors.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

For example, Vox’s headline<\/a> inaccurately stated, “The Supreme Court Says No, Texas Can’t Use Razor Wire to Restrain Federal Agents.” And immediately after the court’s order and Texas’\u200c commitment \u200dto continue using razor\u200d wire<\/a>, the\u2063 media started spreading the\u200b false narrative that\u200b Texas was disregarding\u2064 the \u200cSupreme Court’s decision.<\/p>\n

But both of these\u2064 claims are incorrect. The Supreme Court did\u200c not say that Texas couldn’t install \u2063razor\u2063 wire, and \u2062Texas did not defy the court’s\u2064 decision\u200d because the court didn’t give any specific orders to Texas.<\/p>\n

What the Supreme Court’s order\u2063 did\u200d was lift the injunction that a\u200c lower \u2062court had placed on the Biden\u2064 administration, allowing \u200dthe federal government to remove<\/em> Texas’ fencing while still allowing Texas to keep installing it.<\/p>\n

Supremacy Clause \u2064Doesn’t Override State\u2062 Sovereignty<\/h2>\n
The media has also been misrepresenting the significance \u2063of \u2063the \u2064supremacy clause. \u200dMembers \u2064of the press, politicians, and academics are \u200cportraying the supremacy clause\u2064 as giving the Biden administration an automatic advantage \u2063in any dispute with Texas. \u2063But that’s not what \u2064the clause actually does.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
The \u200bsupremacy clause, found in Article VI of the U.S.\u2063 Constitution, states\u200d that the \u2064Constitution and federal laws\u200c are “the \u200bsupreme law of the land.” This means that federal law takes \u200bprecedence over state law, but it’s \u2064a complex\u2064 issue\u2063 to determine which state\u2064 laws \u2062are affected and \u200bwhen. Simply invoking the supremacy clause doesn’t provide\u200d a clear answer about\u200d the legitimacy of Texas’ border security efforts.<\/p>\n
Furthermore,\u200b those who claim that every action \u2063taken by\u2063 Texas is\u200b an attack on our constitutional\u200c system are ignoring the fact that our\u2063 Constitution recognizes both \u2064the sovereignty of the federal government and<\/em> the\u2064 state governments, with each having \u2062to \u2062respect \u200bthe \u2062other’s authority, \u200beven if it’s a complicated balance.<\/p>\n
Sovereignty, \u2064Supremacy, and the Standoff<\/h2>\n
The coverage of the standoff in Eagle \u200bPass perfectly illustrates the inaccurate reporting\u2064 surrounding the \u2062supremacy clause and the disregard for Texas’ sovereignty.<\/p>\n
Eagle Pass, a border town in \u2063Texas,\u200c became the center of attention when Governor Greg \u200cAbbott declared a \u200dstate of\u200b emergency and took control of Shelby Park. Under the governor’s directive, the Texas National Guard restricted access to the \u200cpark, including for federal Border Patrol agents.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
In response,\u200b the Department of \u200dHomeland \u200dSecurity \u200d(DHS), which had\u200c been using Shelby \u2064Park as a staging area for illegal aliens,\u2064 sent\u2062 two letters to Texas demanding unrestricted \u2064access to the park.\u2064 These letters, along with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s responses, expose \u200cthe flaws\u200c in many of the \u2064legal \u200carguments made\u200b by critics to condemn Abbott’s actions.<\/p>\n
In \u2064its first letter<\/a> to Texas, dated January 14, 2024, DHS demanded that\u200c “Texas cease and desist its efforts to \u200bblock Border Patrol’s\u2064 access\u200b in\u200c and around the Shelby Park\u2063 area and \u200dremove \u2063all barriers\u200b to access in the Shelby Park\u200b area.” \u2062DHS justified this\u200c demand by claiming that “the State of Texas [has] impeded operations \u200cof the Border Patrol” and \u200cthat Texas’ actions “conflict with\u200d the authority and duties\u2063 of Border \u200bPatrol under\u200c federal law and \u200bare preempted under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.”<\/p>\n
DHS\u2062 also added, “Texas’s \u2063actions also \u200cimproperly seek to regulate the federal government,” and argued that the \u2064entire area where Border \u2063Patrol was denied access is within 25 \u2063miles of the \u200cinternational border, \u200bwhich grants Border Patrol\u2062 an express statutory right of access\u200d without a warrant.<\/p>\n
While Border Patrol does have authority and duties related to \u2062immigration enforcement, Texas’ decision to block access likely did interfere with\u200d DHS’s operations. However, the supremacy clause does not \u200cgive DHS the \u2062power to simply \u200ctake over private or another sovereign’s property by demanding it. (Emergency situations present \u2063different considerations, \u2062but Texas maintains that \u2063Border Patrol\u2064 can access \u2064any part of the park in an emergency.)<\/p>\n
DHS \u200bknows this, which is why their initial letter to Texas referenced\u200c two\u200d different theories to justify Border Patrol’s access to the park. First, they\u200d claimed that a Memorandum of \u2064Agreement between DHS and Eagle Pass in December 2015 granted DHS continuous\u2062 and uninterrupted\u2063 access to all gate locations.<\/p>\n
Whether that Memorandum of Agreement actually gave DHS a property \u2064right in Eagle Pass is unclear.\u200d Texas argues that \u2064under the state\u2063 Constitution,\u200b Eagle Pass couldn’t grant Border Patrol a \u2063property right without the state’s approval. A court might have \u2064to decide whether the Memorandum of \u2064Agreement grants \u200cDHS unrestricted access to \u200dEagle Park, but that\u2063 dispute has\u200c nothing to do\u200d with \u2062the supremacy\u2062 clause.<\/p>\n
Secondly, DHS claimed that Border\u2064 Patrol has an express statutory right of access because\u2064 the Shelby Park area is within 25 miles of the international border. However, as \u2063Paxton emphasized in his \u200bresponse letter to DHS, the federal statute \u2063that authorizes<\/a> “U.S. Border Patrol warrantless access to land within 25 miles of the border”\u200d specifically states that such access is “for the purpose\u200b of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of \u2062aliens into the United\u200b States.”<\/p>\n
On the contrary, DHS is trying to facilitate \u200billegal entry and use the\u200d property \u200cto \u200cprocess migrants. Therefore, that \u200bstatute does not grant DHS\u200b the access it demands.<\/p>\n
In response to Paxton’s \u2064letter rejecting DHS’s demands, DHS sent a second missive<\/a>. This time, the federal agency \u2064made\u2063 no mention of the supremacy clause or\u200c a statutory right to \u200daccess the property, which tacitly \u2064admits that their initial arguments were baseless. Instead,\u2062 DHS claimed that\u2064 the federal government actually \u200cowned \u200cthe\u200c property in and around \u200bEagle Pass, having obtained title through condemnation.<\/p>\n
To \u2062support this assertion, DHS referred to a final \u200djudgment from 2016 that showed the \u200dGeorge W. Bush administration acquiring ownership of various plots of \u200dland\u200c in and around Eagle \u200cPass. If the federal government does indeed own the \u2064disputed property,\u200d Texas stated that it \u2064would remove any obstructions to federal land.<\/p>\n
However, \u200cTexas expressed \u2062serious doubts about the federal government’s claims of \u200dproperty rights. Paxton pointed out that DHS’s own map “shows most of \u200cthe tracts you reference fall outside the perimeter area secured by Texas at\u200b Shelby Park.” \u2064Furthermore, publicly available records suggest that the United States does not even claim ownership of the \u2063parcels mentioned in the latest letter. \u2064Paxton concluded his response\u2063 by\u2064 requesting DHS to provide\u2062 official plat maps and deeds identifying the property owned by the United States, as well as\u200c an explanation of how Texas is preventing\u200c federal agents\u200b from accessing those parcels.<\/p>\n
DHS\u2062 has yet to\u2062 respond, but this\u2064 exchange confirms that it is \u200dthe Biden administration encroaching on Texas’ sovereignty, not the \u2064other way around.<\/p>\n
If the Biden administration truly owns the disputed property, it could have proven it long ago instead\u200d of relying on the supremacy clause. The Constitution allows for condemnation proceedings, and Congress has\u2062 granted the U.S. government the authority to\u200d acquire\u2063 ownership\u200c over real property when necessary to\u2063 control and protect U.S. borders, \u2062with the property owner receiving fair compensation. In fact, the federal government gains rights to\u200b the property upon filing the condemnation \u2063petition, ensuring prompt access.<\/p>\n
Texas may not be pleased\u200c with\u2064 the Biden administration taking ownership of Shelby \u2064Park through condemnation, but that’s\u2064 where the \u2064supremacy clause comes into play. \u200bFederal law is the highest law of\u2063 the land,\u200b and Texas’ sovereignty now takes a backseat.<\/p>\n
The fact that the Biden administration hasn’t \u200cutilized the power\u200c to condemn Shelby Park suggests that the president knows most Americans wouldn’t approve \u200bof the \u2063federal government seizing a park to create \u200ca camp for those illegally entering our country.<\/p>\n
DHS can\u2062 avoid this\u2062 spectacle if it can prove that a previous administration already obtained \u200btitle to\u2064 the \u200cdisputed property.\u2063 But even if that’s the case, the Biden administration’s \u200dbattle with Texas over border security is \u2063far from\u200b over.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
rnrn <\/p>\n
What are the complexities surrounding<\/a> the legal arguments<\/a> regarding access to Shelby Park in the standoff in Eagle Pass<\/h2>\n
\u2062In their letter. Texas\u200d asked DHS to provide \u200bproof of ownership and warned that\u200b if the federal government did not\u2062 provide evidence, Texas would maintain \u200dcontrol\u200d of \u200dthe land.<\/p>\n
This exchange of letters highlights the complexity of \u2064the situation and \u200dthe \u2062misuse of the supremacy clause to justify federal \u200boverreach. The media’s portrayal of \u2064Texas as an aggressor disregards the legal arguments and the legitimate concerns raised<\/a> by the \u2063state.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
It’s crucial to separate fact from fiction when it comes to Texas’ border security efforts and the media’s coverage of the situation. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling did not prohibit \u200dTexas\u200d from installing \u2062razor-wire fencing, and Texas did not defy the court’s decision. The supremacy clause does not automatically give the federal government an\u2062 advantage over the\u200c state, and it does not\u2062 negate the state’s sovereignty.<\/p>\n
The standoff \u200bin Eagle Pass exemplifies the misrepresentation of the supremacy clause \u200band the disregard for Texas’ rights. The legal\u200d arguments surrounding access to Shelby Park are complex and cannot be simplified to a mere conflict between federal and state authority.<\/p>\n
It\u200c is essential for \u200dthe media and the public to approach this issue with nuance and\u200b an understanding of the legal principles at play. Texas has valid concerns about border security and the impact of illegal immigration on the state. Dismissing these\u2063 concerns as unconstitutional \u2062actions undermines productive discourse and hinders \u2063progress towards\u2064 solutions.<\/p>\n
Instead of perpetuating misleading narratives, it \u2062is imperative \u2064to\u200c have informed \u200bdiscussions that respect\u2063 the \u2063sovereignty of both the federal\u2062 government and the individual states. Only through\u2064 open dialogue and an accurate understanding of the \u2063law can we effectively address the challenges at the Texas border.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/body><\/html><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Texas’ border. Contrary to the Democrat accomplice media’s narrative, Texas is not defying the Supreme Court. The court recently lifted an injunction that prevented the federal government from removing razor-wire fencing installed by Texas. It’s crucial to distinguish truth from falsehoods surrounding Texas’ border security efforts<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2164639,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Mayorkas-El-Paso-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2164638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Mayorkas-El-Paso-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2164638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2164638"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2164638\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2164639"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2164638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2164638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2164638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}