**: Lukewen Studio.
The matter in Texas looks very serious, and it is the governor's cruel words, and the deployment of troops, all kinds of black clouds, and it feels like a civil war is just a point, but it is not as serious as everyone thinks. So far, everyone is still finding reasons for themselves within the framework of the constitution, in other words, they are all guarding the bottom line, and it is far from the time to tear their faces.
Let's take this opportunity to talk about the underlying logic of the operation of the American state, many things look like fantasy, but they are not that complicated.
One
The first question is, why do the states of the United States have the strength to compete with the federal government?
To make this clear, we have to move forward.
After the Revolutionary War, the British were driven out, and the thirteen states of the United States formed a union**, which was organized in the form of a confederation at that time.
In fact, it is a loose alliance, a bit like the current European Union, finance, finance, foreign affairs, and defense are all the responsibility of each state itself, and the confederation ** is like the European Commission, if there is something to call the bigwigs of the states to sit together and discuss, they will go back to their own homes if they have nothing to do. The degree of the union is even inferior to that of the European Union, which has at least unified its currency and tariffs, and they even play their own tariffs. It's a bit like the Spring and Autumn Period, when the vassal states went their own way, and Zhou Tianzi was a mascot.
If there is no external force in this model, it is not a big problem to close the door, such as the Spring and Autumn Period in our country, everyone is basically safe, although sometimes neighbors will copy the guy because of the chicken feathers, but the start is measured, the battle is over, the service is soft, the song is sung, the dance is danced, and the business can not be stopped.
This was not the case when the United States was first founded, the British father was ready to come back and take charge again, France and Germany were also staring at this piece of fat, and Spain in the south was ready to move.
For example, the Confederation wants to unite everyone to raise tariffs unanimously, and the British only need to find a few states and give them three melons and two dates.
In fact, when Britain colonized the United States, it deliberately gave the states the power of autonomy in order to check and balance each other.
At that time, a group of people led by Treasury Secretary Hamilton had a clear mind, and felt that the rules should be changed, and these 13 states should be pinched together, and everyone was unanimous to the outside world, and they called this new form of organization the Federation, and these people were the famous Federalists.
So what's the difference between a federation and a confederation?
The degree of unity of the federation is a little higher, and the fiscal, financial, personnel, diplomatic, foreign trade, and national defense aspects must be concentrated.
There is no doubt that such a plan has been fiercely opposed by conservative forces, and it is easy to understand that for the bigwigs in various states, it is natural to be very unhappy that they have suddenly changed from the national level to the provincial and ministerial level, and all the power has been handed over.
And just moved the mountain that weighed on the head of the United Kingdom, and if this is going to be set up again, isn't it a part-time job for others?
In order to convince the common people, the Federalists worked hard to write articles and opposition polemics, from the benefits of establishing a federation to every article and paragraph of the constitution, and explained them to the common people. In 1789, after rounds of negotiations, the 13 states finally reached a consensus and signed an agreement to recognize the U.S. Constitution and establish a federation**.
Of course, the Federalists also made a lot of compromises to dispel the misgivings of the state bigwigs.
For example, the state retains the right to collect taxes from the people of the state on its own, that is, in addition to paying taxes to the federal government, the people must also pay an additional tax to the state.
Looks familiar, doesn't it? Our country's tax-sharing system was learned from the United States.
In terms of management, under the condition of not violating the constitution, each state can make its own laws, and one of the triggers for such a big move in Texas this time is that the governor signed a bill, which we will say later.
In terms of personnel, the leadership team is resolved by the states themselves, and the federal ** does not interfere in the personnel appointments of the states.
Yes, the governors and state legislators of the United States are elected by the state itself, not appointed by the federation, and naturally do not have to be responsible to the federation. This is also why the governor has no burden at all, there is no relationship between superiors and subordinates, who is afraid of whom.
Militarily, the standing army is under the command of **, and the states can retain their own arms, that is, the National Guard, which is actually a militia, which is equivalent to leaving a gun for the local government to ensure that the two sides can sit down and negotiate calmly when something happens.
Congress guarantees that each state will be attended, and each state will nominate its own candidates, and then PK together.
Basically, all areas except diplomacy and foreign trade give the state ** considerable autonomy.
This system was written down in black and white, and everyone signed it together, and it became the U.S. Constitution.
In the event of a dispute, everyone is no bigger than the official position, the governor and ** can also fight in court, who is right and who is wrong has to go to the constitution to find a basis, and the description of the constitution shall prevail. In case there are new circumstances that are not taken into account, then an amendment is added to the Constitution.
As you can see, the form of federation is considered to be a relatively low degree of concentration in the form of state organization, and it can also be seen from the name, "United States of America", which literally means the union of several countries.
The problem caused by this loose structure is that the federal and local governments are easily torn apart, especially when the local governments are strong, they will not take the federation in their eyes, just as the United States will not treat the United Nations as a root.
This time, it was Texas that jumped out to challenge the federal **.
II
Things seem simple.
The federal ** encourages immigration, so it advocates opening the borders and allowing everyone to realize the American dream.
However, as a leader, the standard shape is to just command and not work. The federal ** is addicted to talking and being a good person, but the resettlement family doesn't care, the whole is the principle of territoriality, and whoever the immigrants go to is responsible.
This is a bitter state**, immigrants come with a bag, accommodation, work, eating, drinking, and Lazar are all things, and some states are okay, lacking low-end labor, just throwing out the dirty work. In some states, there are no surplus jobs, and immigrants come in that it is pure consumption and misery.
Among them, the most uncomfortable is Texas, which bears the brunt of the pestle at the U.S.-Mexico border, the first stop for illegal immigrants to enter the country, and in 2023, it is said that there are 3.2 million illegal immigrants, of which 2.5 million are from Texas.
Texas can't handle so many immigrants, so it can only pull barbed wire, set up obstacles in rivers, and try its best to keep immigrants out of the country.
This is the opposite of the Federation, and the two sides quarrel a lot over this matter.
Texans are efficient, scolding the streets, and their hands are not idle, while repairing barbed wire, while pulling unsettled immigrants to Washington, D.C. by car. Don't you like immigration? Free home delivery.
There are also big cities such as Chicago and New York, which usually give the federal ** help, point fingers at Texas, stand and talk without backache, Texans have clear grievances, and by the way, they also sent them some immigrants.
"Don't just say, try it.
Several cities have been tossed a lot, and these buses that send immigrants have been nicknamed: "hooligan buses".
The more ruthless is Chicago, which introduced a city bill, who sends immigrants to Chicago, directly detains the car, plus sues. Fortunately, the drivers are also smart, adjust their tactics, simply do not go into the city, put the immigrants far away in the suburbs, and then issue free bus cards to let them infiltrate the bus.
However, after all, there are only a few people who are diverted, and more than 10,000 people have been sent out in two years, which is enough for disgusting people, but compared with two million, it is a drop in the bucket, and the actual problem has to be solved by itself.
So in December last year, Texas simply passed a bill authorizing Texas law enforcement to directly arrest, imprison, prosecute, and deport illegal immigrants.
This is a hornet's nest.
As we said earlier, states can issue bills on their own, but there is a premise that they cannot violate the Constitution.
According to the U.S. Constitution, immigration involves diplomacy and is the responsibility of the federal government, and the Border Patrol is a proper federal agency that has performed tasks at the border. It stands to reason that they will be able to deal with immigration-related matters.
Texas sent the National Guard to get involved in this matter, which is considered to be overstepping management, and directly reaching into the federal ** pot.
So it caused a lot of controversy at the time, saying that this would reduce the law enforcement effectiveness of the federal **, if other states did the same, where is the authority of the federal **?
Fortunately, the constitution does not explicitly say that the state cannot regulate immigration, and strictly speaking it is not a violation of the constitution, so Texas should not have heard it. You say yours, I continue to reinforce the barbed wire.
However, this border is lively, the national guard team and the border patrol team carry out tasks together, and the instructions received by both sides are diametrically opposed, what else can you do this job?
In the end, the Texas front foot repair, the border patrol followed by demolition, and the two sides tacitly avoided head-on conflict, and played a game of digging and burying pits at the border like whack-a-mole.
The first to be unbearable was Texas**, which took the Department of Homeland Security to court, saying that the removal of the barbed wire fence was a violation of Texas law.
The local **sue** department, this belongs to the fairy fight, and the general court can't catch it. Only the circuit courts and the Supreme Court can deal with it. However, it is not easy to say the rights and wrongs of this matter, so everyone is sloppy.
First, the circuit court sided with Texas** and banned the patrol from breaking the barbed wire, and then the Supreme Court turned over the pie and reversed the circuit court's decision. It seems that the high court is on the side of the federation, but people did not say that it was right to destroy the barbed wire, as if they said something, and it seemed that they did not say anything, so the governor of Texas ignored it and stepped up the construction of the barbed wire fence on his own.
The ** patrol team did not take the verdict seriously, saying that there was no plan for further action in the near future, and everyone was waiting for the leaders to explain things clearly.
Further escalating the situation was the Texas National Guard's control of Shelby Park, the main thoroughfare for illegal border crossings, and restrictions on Border Patrol's access to the area.
What does this mean?
A piece of land has been enclosed on Hainan Island, saying that the armed police force is forbidden to enter law enforcement, do you say that there is still a royal law here?
The matter of mixing immigrants has already moved the cheese of the Department of Homeland Security, and now he has to kick the owner away and eat alone, the uncle can bear it, and the aunt can't bear it.
So the two sides began to fight again, and the federal ** said that the whole world is not the king's land, why not let the Department of Homeland Security go in to enforce the law. Texas said, you said that this land is yours, is there any evidence? There is no evidence for what is being bullished.
Of course, just talking about it is air-to-air after all, remember what we said earlier? The Constitution is not decided on internal matters.
So the governor of Texas took out the constitution to stand up for himself, and the constitution said that if the state ** is invaded, the National Guard can be used to defend the state, which is the right given to us by the constitution.
Let's say one thing, this reason is really far-fetched.
The background of the introduction of this decree is that when the founding of the country, the federal standing army was relatively small, and communication was inconvenient. So give the local discretion. It's a bit like an adult in the family explaining to a child, "If someone beats you, you must fight back".
Now the premise of "inconvenient communication" has long been gone, and it is really not appropriate for you to bypass the federation ** and do it directly, and also target the guys at the federation**.
And there are different understandings of the concept of invasion, the federation ** says that it is just a few immigrants, do they have tanks? Machine guns? Who invades and drags the family with the mouth?
The governor said that these immigrants seriously affect the work and life of the people of Texas, this is an invasion, you say no, then you can prove it to me?
In the end, the word game was played, and the two sides talked their own words, and they couldn't talk anymore this day.
However, the two sides shook the sky with artillery shelling, and there was no confrontation at the actual military level.
Although Texas has deployed troops, it is mainly to stop immigrants. The states said that they were supporting, but they also wanted to help block immigrants, but they didn't say they wanted to rebel, and they didn't mean to confront the federation.
The federal ** is not even mobilized, and the Border Patrol is basically resting, leaving the Texas National Guard to toss.
So the civil war that everyone expects is almost unlikely.
Can you sit down and have a good talk?
It's unlikely, so we'll have to talk about the partisan struggle in the United States.
Three
As you know, there are two main political parties in the United States, and their positions on the immigration issue are very clear. Democrats advocate letting immigrants in, and Republicans support building a border wall to keep migrants out. Therefore, in this battle between the central government and the local government, the Democrats will all stand in the federal and the Republicans will stand in Texas.
You may wonder, why are there competing opinions? It's okay to reconcile.
Not really, this is determined by the American electoral system.
Elections in the United States require an absolute majority, whether it is a ** election, a congressional election or a bill vote, and only more than 50% will be considered passed, which determines two things.
First, there must be only two party PKs. But if you add a third child and randomly divide the votes of the eldest and second child, then no one can exceed half, and things will not be done.
So even if there is a third child, it will definitely unite with the eldest or second child and become two political parties. It's a bit like if you want to control the board of directors of a company, then you have to win over all forces, and in the end there will definitely be two major groups PK.
Second, partisan views must be-for-tat. If you say east, I will say west, and if you say yes, I have to say no. This is also a helpless choice under the electoral system, and taking the middle-of-the-road route will not attract voters.
How to understand this?
For example, if a political party is electing, his attitude on the issue of abortion is that it doesn't matter, whether it is forbidden or allowed, I support it. Let's assume that voters' attitudes toward abortion fall into three categories: pro, supportive, and middle-of-the-road. It stands to reason that the centrist faction should vote for you, but will this part of the population vote for you? Most likely not, because it doesn't matter if you vote for this vote or not, anyway, what you said about this proposition is the same as if you didn't say it, and I still have to ask for leave to go to the polling station to vote, so I simply abstained.
But if your argument is to allow abortion, at least the vast majority of women will firmly go to the streets to vote for you, and you must make your attitude clear in the face of right and wrong, and if you advocate for a ban on abortion, the Republican Party will also brave the wind and snow to vote for you.
If you take the middle route, although some people will agree with your point of view, there is a high probability that these Buddhist lazy people will not vote for you, and you will lose some votes.
Therefore, the two-party split system is not enough, and the views must be incompatible, which is in line with the rules of the game. This situation is combined with the US system of decentralization, and the matter is getting bigger and bigger.
For example, the immigration issue, if it is not mixed with party disputes, this matter is easy to solve, the federal ** and Texas each take a step back, control the number of immigrants, and the federal ** will give more resettlement fees, or give some compensation in other places, Texas will not suffer, and can earn a good reputation, and this matter will pass.
But Biden can come to power, the main thing is a loose immigration policy, if you back down at this time, Democratic voters feel that you are not strong-willed, and they will not vote for you next time.
It is not possible to give compensation, the big question is where does the money come from? The budget of the United States is not the final word, then it has to be agreed by Congress, and now the House of Representatives is basically the world of the Republican Party, and it does not agree to let immigration go, and you still let taxpayers pay to support them, what do you want?
This is also a stubborn disease of the American political system. It is useless for a party to control only the White House, not Congress.
Because according to the separation of powers, all major matters must be nodded by Congress. Theoretically speaking, ** is just an executor, a bit like the housekeeper in the mansion, you can be the master of small things, and you must consult the owner when you encounter big things.
There is nothing wrong with this system, and it is also a good thing that there is one more person to check major matters, which can reduce the chance of making mistakes.
However, under the two-party politics, this cannot be operated, and the separation of powers has become a tool for party struggle. **Democratic, Congressional Republican,** bill is beneficial to the country and the people, Congress just disagrees, and it is clear that it is not right for people, you can't say anything, this is within the framework of the Constitution, and it is the right of people to agree or disagree.
This is also why both parties attach great importance to the midterm elections, and when they become the first to hold only half of the power, they can call the shots in small things, and if they want to do big things, they have to win even the Congress.
See? There is nothing wrong with the separation of powers running alone, but once it is mixed with the parties, it cannot be played.
Biden is now facing such a dilemma, because Congress is making trouble, and basically none of the big things he wants to do have been done, and all kinds of grievances.
For example, last year, Biden had a $60 billion arms sales proposal to Ukraine, which has not been approved by Congress.
The only solution is to exchange the issue of immigration.
Recently, Biden proposed another bill on immigration, taking a big step back, no longer open to accepting illegal immigrants, saying that he would control the number of people, set a cap every day, and close the border if it is exceeded, and repeatedly emphasized that with the current smuggling situation, as long as the bill is passed, he will close the border wall. The implication is that as long as the bill passes, Texas can justifiably close its borders, which is obviously a gesture of goodwill to the Republican Party and Texas.
According to his idea, the immigration bill and the Ukraine aid bill were submitted to Congress together, hoping that the Republican Party would wave their hands and let the two bills go together.
However, this move is a stupid move to retreat into advance. On the one hand, Democratic voters are very dissatisfied, feeling that Biden admits cowardice and does not have a firm position, and should stick to the end. On the other hand, the Republican Party is not satisfied, saying that you are foolish, we want watermelon, and you want to send it away when you give sesame seeds, what do you want? The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is even more blatant, saying that your little essay will fail you even if you turn it in, so don't waste your time and slip back to rewrite it.
So Biden is now in a dilemma, if he wants to clean up Texas, Congress will definitely not agree, and it is in vain. And the Constitution doesn't support it, the federal army is resistant to foreign enemies, and if you turn your guns on your own people, you can't justify it anyway.
If you admit it thoroughly, things may go smoothly, but changing your political position will move the basic plate of the Democratic Party, and the election has just begun.
Texas also understood this and knew that you couldn't do anything, so the governor went on a business trip to India after his cruel words, and he didn't take it seriously at all. Change the lieutenant governor ** to continue to scold, and let Biden come over.
* Quiet like a big girl, he really can't do anything.
Now the happiest is Trump, watching the excitement is not a big deal, I wish to dry my political opponent on the stove for a little longer, how hot it is now, how fast it will cool in the future.
However, there is one thing to say, Texas has done a bit too much, magnifying the internal rift in the United States, and greatly affecting the reputation of the lighthouse country, so the Republican Party is not one-sided support, for example, the bill mentioned earlier, there were originally 6 pro-Republican judges in the High Court, but when they voted, there were two anti-water, and the judgment against Texas was passed, which is very telling in itself.
At present, although the two sides are attacking each other over the immigration issue, they actually have their own calculations.
Biden wants to get to peace quickly, as long as he can move forward with the work, even if he privately admits to the Republican Party, it doesn't matter. The best state is that there are achievements in the work, and the face is passable, don't affect the *** that has begun
The Texas gang is not against the federal **, they are targeting Biden and the Democratic Party, and they are sure that Biden has no aftermath.
It is even reasonable to speculate that Texas released this big move at the end of last year, which is likely to disgust Biden on the immigration issue. If you want to settle things, I'm going to make a big deal out of it and let you roast it on the fire for a little longer.
IV
So is Biden at all?
No, the founding fathers of the United States also expected that the separation of powers was likely to evolve into a mutual fight, and it was not a big problem for everyone to contain each other in peacetime, and in case of emergency, they would pull each other back, that is, everyone would finish playing together. Therefore, there is still a back door in the constitution, such as the National Guard is under local command in peacetime, but in a state of emergency or war, the federal ** has the right to requisition.
There is a precedent for this. In the 50s of the last century, the federal abolition of racial segregation was opposed by some states, and the Arkansas National Guard prevented black students from enrolling, and Eisenhower ordered the takeover of the National Guard in Arkansas on the grounds of a state of emergency. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina took over the command of the Florida National Guard during the relief operation.
So now some people in the Democratic Party have suggested that Biden sacrifice this trick and directly take over the command of the National Guard in Texas.
This is a big move, although the governor of Texas is not stingy, but he reacted violently to this news, directly warning Biden not to make a stupid move, obviously a little weak-hearted. All states are also nervous, and several states have announced military support for Texas, which is actually introduced in this context, and you can't take over the National Guard in all states, right?
I don't think it's very likely, after all, polls show that most of the people support the ban on illegal immigrants, and at this time Biden forcibly takes over, that is, he is completely on the opposite side of the people, and he is likely to be attacked by the House of Representatives**, which is really stealing chickens and rice. After all, as I said earlier, Biden's top priority now is **, and there is no benefit at all in playing **prestige.
Let's just say a few words at the end of the article.
Many people often talk about the electoral system and the separation of powers, in fact, you must know that this thing is only a few hundred years old, and in these hundreds of years, most of the time the West has been at the top of the food chain, has been constantly expanding, there is always income at home, the head eats meat, the middle eats vegetables, the bottom drinks soup, everyone can mix their stomachs, so there has been no problem.
However, whether a thing is good or not depends not only on how it is when the wind is smooth, but also on whether it can play a role when everyone eats soil, and it will take a few hundred years to see clearly.
Now the United States is going downhill, the tide is receding, and it is clear whether you are wearing clothes or not.
So don't jump to conclusions, don't be superstitious, and don't blindly follow.
The chief designer has long said that development is the last word, let's just bow our heads and hurry, see the moves, don't be polite to take the things that are useful to us, the bells and whistles, just listen to it.