Texas Border Wall: Gov. Greg Abbott’s Plan is to Bypass the Fed

The following story is brought to you courtesy of Red State. Click the link to visit their page and see more stories.

Fox News’ Bill Melugin was given exclusive access to the initial construction on Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s promised barrier in Del Rio, across from the Rio Grande River.

From Melugin’s report, we learned that the intention behind the temporary fences, which we know can be easily scaled over or cut apart, and the “No Trespassing” signs, are to draw a bright line between state and federal jurisdiction.

I asked what a chain-link fence is going to stop? Texas DPS tells me the idea is to cut the feds out of the equation. No trespass signs allow them to arrest on local charges. Instead of calling Border Patrol, they will take migrants to jail for violating Texas law.

When you cut out the middlemen between Law and ORDER, then your ability to actually conduct both increases exponentially. According to the report on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, DPS is looking to increase enforcement. When you no longer have to hand off illegals and migrants trying to breach the Texas border, then you can use Texas law as the barometer of enforcement.

Texas is, and has remained a sovereign state. There is always talk about secession from the United States to once again become its own territory. Gov. Abbott’s moves seem to be a reminder and a reinforcement of this.

Brent Smith, an attorney in Kinney County wrote in a Op-Ed:

The state of Texas, as a sovereign political entity, has the inherent authority to enforce its own borders and protect its citizens. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the federal government shall protect each state of the Union against invasion. It is not voluntary. It is a constitutional mandate created to guarantee the protection of all the states in the Union. Anticipating that the federal government at some point may not follow the constitutional mandate, the framers added something else, another guarantee for the states. Under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, the states reserved their sovereign authority to act in the protection of their citizens when threatened by “invasion or imminent harm.”

It is only logical to conclude that the authors of the U.S. Constitution included this expressed reservation of state sovereignty for times when the federal government is not able, or willing, to uphold its guarantee of protection under Article IV, Section 4. In other words, this reserved authority functions the same way as a “break the glass in case of emergency” scenario.

The glass has been broken.