The letter looks like it contains some seriously sound Constitutional legal principle. The first line, the one tht says "The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the States" also sounds pretty ominous. That's the sort of thing the Founders got into the habit of saying just before declaring independence. This has the potential to go south in a hell of a hurry, but what has to be done, has to be done. When a government is no longer responsive to it's citizens, then it is no longer a legitimate government. That is an old principle, set forth in the Declaration of Independence, 1776 version.
The part of the post dealing with calls to "Federalize" the Texas National Guard fits in well with the thread on militias. As I mentioned there, any force intended to be a check on a government cannot be subject to that same government. I think this demonstrates adequately that the various National Guards are not "militias". Instead, they are merely other tentacles of the national standing army. If they were militias, they would only be subject to local and state governments. If Abbott wants to use the Guard as a state militia, he needs to come up with some legal theory that declares them not subject to "federalization", and pronto.
This bears watching, if only to see whether it is merely another shot across the bow for the Feds in a long line of shots across the bow, or whether it is the shot that will provoke them to take action... and that action may not be very pretty. I think we all know that they are not going to enforce national borders until a less lawless monarch sits on the throne in the Oval Office. Until then, the US will remain under attack, with the very people who are supposed to protect us conspiring with the attackers.
I think they used to have a name for that sort of activity, when folks betray the very people they were sworn to protect....
.
The part of the post dealing with calls to "Federalize" the Texas National Guard fits in well with the thread on militias. As I mentioned there, any force intended to be a check on a government cannot be subject to that same government. I think this demonstrates adequately that the various National Guards are not "militias". Instead, they are merely other tentacles of the national standing army. If they were militias, they would only be subject to local and state governments. If Abbott wants to use the Guard as a state militia, he needs to come up with some legal theory that declares them not subject to "federalization", and pronto.
This bears watching, if only to see whether it is merely another shot across the bow for the Feds in a long line of shots across the bow, or whether it is the shot that will provoke them to take action... and that action may not be very pretty. I think we all know that they are not going to enforce national borders until a less lawless monarch sits on the throne in the Oval Office. Until then, the US will remain under attack, with the very people who are supposed to protect us conspiring with the attackers.
I think they used to have a name for that sort of activity, when folks betray the very people they were sworn to protect....
.