Here is a correction that Glenn Reynolds posted on Instapundit: “One small correction: The Texas State Guard (not to be confused with the Texas National Guard) is indeed immune to federal control, but it is not a “state militia.” It is better understood as troops raised with the consent of Congress under Article I section 10 of the Constitution.”
What the Supreme Court did is set up a possible armed confrontation between US forces and Texas forces. TX can put up wire and the Feds can take it down. Anyone see a problem here? John Roberts is the modern Roger Taney.
Here is a correction that Glenn Reynolds posted on Instapundit: “One small correction: The Texas State Guard (not to be confused with the Texas National Guard) is indeed immune to federal control, but it is not a “state militia.” It is better understood as troops raised with the consent of Congress under Article I section 10 of the Constitution.”
Glenn is, of course, correct.
What the Supreme Court did is set up a possible armed confrontation between US forces and Texas forces. TX can put up wire and the Feds can take it down. Anyone see a problem here? John Roberts is the modern Roger Taney.
Very informative. Thanks, Mr Lucas.
If that were the case, they should have told the 5th Circuit that was the problem, no?
Excellent point, Richard.