Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
The ICE agent has been charged, so Texas has the Constitutional duty to hand him over to face charges. If Abbot’s refusal stands, the Constitution is just another piece of paper and the rules-based order is dead.
Edit: Trump-appointed judge refused to issue a TRO to prevent the ICE agent’s release. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/judge-denies-minnesota-request-halt-release-christian-castro-minneapolis-ice-agent-shooting/
Just like the bible, conservatives only care about specific parts of the Constitution.
They pick and choose what they want. For example, omitting the “Well regulated militia” while allowing the “shall not be infringed”.
Yeah I got in an argument with a former friend about that. He just kept repeating “shall not be infringed” over and over. I stopped my truck and pulled up the 2nd Amendment and told him to read it. He shut the fuck up. Look I am a 2nd Amendment guy but that amendment implies that as citizens we are obligated to be part of the state defense force if the need arises. With what the Republicans are doing right now and the speed of Project 2025 being put into place we need to look to coming together to defend out communities. Or maybe I am just paranoid. I hope I am wrong.
If you’re seriously making this argument, you clearly don’t understand what “well regulated militia” actually means
They claim that “well regulated” doesn’t mean “well regulated”. They claim that it means “in good working order”.
I don’t know whether that’s really how the phrase was used at the time, but if they want to play that game… How was the term “arms” used at the time? Did it refer to weapons that can mow down an entire crowd in several minutes with one pull if the trigger?
Did it refer to weapons that can mow down an entire crowd in several minutes with one pull if the trigger?
At the time, a private citizen could own a cannon. And as was demonstrated when Napolean first took power, a cannon loaded with a canister shell could rip through an entire crowd of people.
Not only that, there were actually repeating rifles available during the American Revolution. The inventor even tried to sell them to the Continental Army, but they cost so much that the Continental Congress wasn’t interested.
Also, “arms” referring to “weapons” is a very old definition.
It’s kind of remarkable that an elected official can knowingly and openly violate the Constitution without there being some branch of the federal law enforcement arresting them.
Well you see all the branches of government are held by the same treasonous fucks that Abbott is protecting.
This is consistent with Republicans pro-murder of the out-group position.
Abbott loves criminals who crime the way he likes. See: Ken Paxton.
They’ll demand medical records of alleged trans children, surveillance data of pregnant women crossing State lines, and doctors who “improperly” use the mail system, but handing over a practically made up law enforcement “agent” caught on camera killing a woman in cold blood? Now that’s crossing a line.
Give him a blowie while you’re at it. Abott, you Eggman reject.
Texas.
Says it all. Right?
