With respect to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis seeking to bus illegal immigrants to Delaware or Martha's Vineyard, shouldn't such actions be considered in the best interests of the illegal immigrants? After all, much of your writing demonizes states with Republican leadership. They don't tax people enough. They "deny" the existential threat that is "climate change". They pass voter suppression laws.
Why, relocating illegal immigrants to Republican states by the Biden Administration might be considered human rights abuse by many in the UN.
In fact, given the left's mantra that EVERYTHING in the United States favors white, male, Christian folks and the country is irredeemably and systemically racist, wouldn't the "humane" thing for Florida to do be to bypass Vermont and Martha's Vineyard with those illegal immigrant buses and deliver them to our more enlightened, progressive friends in Canada?
I would agree with you that it is the federal government that is "responsible" for immigration, not the states.
Would you agree that, when the federal government shirks that responsibility and its superlative responsibility to protect US citizens, the governor has responsibility to do what he can to protect the citizens of his state? That fulfilling their duty to protect of their state's citizens tangentially involves aliens is irrelevant.
How many stories were published this year about people on the border having illegal border crossers trespass upon their property, leave mounds of trash, destroy infrastructure, and sometimes even abandon dead bodies?
Even CNN agrees that illegal alien border deaths during Biden's Border Crisis are up 119% since fiscal year 2020 and up 86% compared to fiscal year 2019.
Don't border governors have a duty to do what they can to protect illegal aliens from being exploited by human traffickers to the extent those illegal aliens may lose their lives? Wouldn't governors ignoring that crisis be immoral at least if not criminally derelict in their duty?
I found many legal resources that contradict your assertion that "… the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that access to legalized abortion is a constitutional right".
The non-specified "right" to an abortion revolved around the right to privacy and that the state's ability to regulate abortion was dependent upon when that abortion was to take place.
Here is one example summarizing the facts of the case:
"However, as we mentioned above, the Court did not agree that the Constitution guarantees an absolute right to an abortion. In other words, the privacy right does not prevent states from putting some regulations on abortion."
You wrote "So we have a state challenging the Constitution, our foundation document." I believe that's incorrect. If anything, we have a state challenging a prior decision of the Supreme Court. THAT'S the way our system of government works.
Adopting your argument would mean accepting the "separate but equal" provisions of the Plessy vs Ferguson Supreme Court decision and framing Brown vs Board of Education as some assault on the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution do you believe it states only Congress can pass laws "contravening" the Supreme Court and the states have no such power to ignore Supreme Court rulings? The article you linked to is a UC Davis Law Review article and NOT reference to a specific clause in the Constitution that would support your argument.
The very essence of the United States is based on different branches of government at the state and federal level in constant "conflict" over the limits of government power and what they can and cannot do. How exactly is it you think states can challenge Supreme Court decisions? Or,, are you arguing for acceptance of "separate but equal" again?
