Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti was among the 24 attorneys general who joined the amicus brief filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach on Friday in support of Texas and Governor Greg Abbott in their in its legal fight with the federal government over the governor’s decision to protect the southern border.
The brief, filed in the U.S. 5th District Court of Appeals, argues that individual states “have a constitutional right to defend themselves that federal law cannot override absent” a declaration from U.S. Congress, and Skrmetti told The Tennessee Star the question ultimately relates to the sovereignty of states.
“A fundamental part of sovereignty is the ability to defend the territory,” Skrmetti told The Star. “If the courts decide the states can’t do that, it’s hard to say that the states are still sovereign.”
He added that self-defense is “a fundamental part of what it means to be sovereign,” and “the federal government and states are also sovereign” in the U.S. Constitution.
Skrmetti explained, “This seems like an instance where the federal government is not holding up its responsibility, and is trying to use the fact that immigration is primarily a federal responsibility to say that the states can’t engage in self-defense.” The attorney general added, “I think the legal defense for Texas here is pretty strong.”
In the amicus brief Skrmetti joined, the attorneys general also support Texas’ claims “there is an invasion at the southern border,” noting, “it is hard to describe what is occurring at the border in any other way.”
Skrmetti referenced the claim when speaking to The Star, declaring the current immigration crisis simply involves too many people entering the country.
“Given the volume of migration, every state is a border state now. You’re seeing it all over the country, and Tennessee obviously has been affected,” Skrmetti said. “The voters in Tennessee are concerned about this, the legislators in Tennessee are concerned about this, the governor is concerned about this.”
Skrmetti then noted, “Look at Chicago, a sanctuary city,” is “now concerned” about the immigration crisis, having recently resorted to “housing people in buses.”
“You look at New York, another sanctuary city, and they were housing people in luxury hotels and public elementary schools. You look at D.C, where they tried to call up the National Guard to deal with the volume of migration,” Skrmetti explained.
The attorney general explained to The Star, “The problem here is not any individual coming in,” but rather, “the problem here is there are just so many people coming in that our system can’t handle it.”
Led by Kansas, the amicus brief includes signatures from the attorneys general of Tennessee, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming and Virginia.
– – –
Tom Pappert is the lead reporter for The Tennessee Star, and also reports for The Georgia Star News, The Virginia Star, and the Arizona Sun Times. Follow Tom on X/Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Texas Border Enforcement” by the Texas Military and “AG Jonathon Skrmetti” is by Tennessee AG Office.
“A fundamental part of sovereignty is the ability to defend the territory,” Skrmetti told The Star. “If the courts decide the states can’t do that, it’s hard to say that the states are still sovereign.”
Are you going to defend the “WHOLE PART” of sovereignty, that of “INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS” or just the State????
Under a “REPUBLIC” form of Government, “CITIZENS” are the “SUPREME AUTHORITY” electing “Administrators” to manage the Government according the form of Government “THEY CREATED” and described in the their “CONSTITUTION”.
‘NO ONE EXCEPT “CITIZENS” HAS AUTHORITY TO CHANGE ANYTHING IN THAT DOCUMENT”.
You want to claim “State Sovereignty” but not “CITIZEN SOVEREIGNTY” when it comes to the “BILL OF RIGHTS”, you want to claim sovereignty over the Federal Government (Rightly so) but don’t want to give “CITIZENS” the same sovereignty “THEY GAVE THEMSELVES” over the “Constitution” and a “Particular” set of rights they set aside from themselves called the “BILL OF RIGHTS”.
It appears to me you’re trying to pull a “Democrat Two Tier justice” play.
Time will tell.