On border policy, GOP lawmakers’ devotion to Constitution malleable
Not since the era of Alabama Gov. George Wallace proclaiming “segregation now, segregation forever,” have blatant calls for lawlessness by elected officials been so commonplace. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, the United States enjoyed a few decades in which incitement of imminent lawlessness by elected leaders would have earned condemnation from both political parties.
Not anymore.
Ever since disgraced former President Donald Trump invited violent nationalists to help him overthrow the results of the 2020 election, it seems that calling for lawlessness has become almost commonplace within the GOP.
Last week, Rep. Chip Roy, R-texas, took to X (formerly Twitter) to advocate that his state should “ignore” a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the Biden administration remove razor wire at the U.s.-mexico border.
A graduate of the University of Texas School of Law, we would’ve expected the congressman to understand the U.S. Constitution and to know better than to openly advocate lawlessness on a global social media platform. Yet that is exactly what it appears Roy did.
Just one day later, he proved his ignorance, arrogance and willingness to engage in conduct of questionable legality yet again, when he told Fox News Digital that the Constitution gives state officials the authority to ignore the law, ignore the court and do anything they deem fit in order to “defend their people.”
Roy’s words are lunacy of the highest order. Yet many of the most ardent MAGA adherents offered their support to his call to overthrow the Constitution.
Oklahoma’s Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, even went on CNN to argue that if his interpretation of the Constitution was different than the Supreme Court’s interpretation, it would be OK for him to disregard the court and do what he thinks is best.
So much for the rule of law.
Roy and Stitt are part of a larger movement that began when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tried to seize control of the border and defy federal immigration and border control policies. When the federal government went to court to reassert its authority, Abbott called for help, and Oklahoma and several other states with Republican governors donated troops to the cause. Despite the
Supreme Court ruling, Abbott has remained defiant and called on the troops to “hold the line,” asserting dubious claims of state supremacy over the federal government in matters of border defense.
To be clear, the Constitution says the exact opposite of what Abbott, Roy and Stitt claim.
Article III gives final jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Constitution, matters of foreign affairs and disputes between states and the federal government to the Supreme Court.
The question of border security and border policy clearly falls within Article III jurisdiction, but just in case Roy or Stitt need more evidence, the Supremacy Clause and Foreign Commerce Clause both give the federal government exclusive authority over American foreign relations, and Article I, Section 10 specifically prohibits states from engaging in activities that implicate international affairs. Article 1, Section 8 also instructs the legislative branch of the federal government — not the state government — to “provide for the common defense and general welfare” of the nation.
Given that the Constitution repeatedly and unequivocally states that it is the federal government which sets immigration and border policies and not the states, the Supreme Court has even gone so far as to say that with regard to matters of foreign relations, “state lines disappear” and the “purpose
of the state ... does not exist.”
Of course, none of this matters to Abbott, Roy or Stitt, who are taking their cues from Trump, a man facing criminal indictments for his role in inciting the violent Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that led to the deaths of multiple police officers.
As if previewing what the next round of violence might look like, Stitt has also been discussing the difficult decisions National Guard members might face if President Joe Biden were to exercise his authority as commander in chief and federalize the troops. While Stitt proposed hypothetical scenarios, his discussion of loyalty in the event of federalization walks right up to the line of calling for open rebellion against the U.S. government.
The insinuation is important because if Stitt ordered Oklahoma’s troops to continue laying the razor wire and restricting federal access to the area, while Biden simultaneously ordered them to enter the area and remove the wire, it is possible that armed conflict could break out between American soldiers.
We’ve been down this road before when President John Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to force the integration of the University of Alabama, as well as nine previously all-white schools across the state, after Wallace attempted to use state troopers to enforce segregation. Fortunately, those encounters had peaceful outcomes. But like Wallace before them, Abbott, Stitt and Roy’s reckless displays of political theater are fraught with the risk that someone could be injured or killed for their political ends.
The idea that Abbott, Stitt and Roy would promote such a tragic chain of events is shameful and worthy of full condemnation. Of course, we know that condemnation will not come, at least not from the GOP.
It did not come in the aftermath of Jan. 6, when the only Republican legislators to openly condemn the violent riots were railroaded out of Congress by their own party. Nor did it come last year in Alabama, when Republicans in that state gave the middle finger to a Supreme Court ruling that sought to protect Black voters from being blatantly disenfranchised.
We can only hope that the American people will not show such disregard for the rule of law as the leaders of the GOP and their mob of MAGA supporters have.
Voters here in Nevada can demonstrate their commitment to law and order by rejecting at the ballot box Trump and any other MAGA extremist who advocates for ignoring the law.
Oklahoma’s Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, even went on CNN to argue that if his interpretation of the Constitution was different than the Supreme Court’s interpretation, it would be OK for him to disregard the court and do what he thinks is best.