Live from Music Row Thursday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed constitutional attorney and law expert Jonathan Emord to the newsmaker line to discuss the illegal immigration at the United States southern border and state’s constitutional rights to defend the American people.
Leahy: In studio, all-star panelist Roger Simon. And on our newsmaker line right now, our very good friend and accomplished attorney, constitutional law expert Jonathan Emord. Jonathan, welcome to The Tennessee Star Report.
Emord: Great to be with you, Michael.
Leahy: You write in your column at Townhall, Are the states defenseless against the invasion of illegals coming across their borders? Are they legally bound to do nothing except that which the Biden administration allows?
No. The Constitution expressly reserves to the state’s sovereign power to defend against invasions and imminent dangers. Can you elaborate on that statement?
Emord: Yes, it’s something that a lot of people don’t focus upon, but in fact, in article one, section 10 of the Constitution, there is a provision there in the event of invasion that the states actually reserve to themselves war powers that would otherwise be exclusively reserved to the federal government.
And it’s also the case that they may exercise those powers in the event of imminent danger. And so with the invasion from across the border happening in all of the states, but particularly the border states, the states can start invoking that section and can use their own military and the National Guard to arrest and detain and then eject individuals.
In fact, James Madison used this provision as the justification for ejecting smugglers from Virginia in the first part of the Republic. So it’s not unprecedented and certainly can be used and it ought to be used.
Leahy: Now let’s talk about the real politics of this. Kari Lake, the GOP gubernatorial nominee in 2022, said that she would exactly and expressly use these powers to defend against the invasion of illegal aliens in Arizona. Unfortunately, she lost that election by 17,000 votes. She still continues her challenge in the courts.
That’s several months away from resolution and her chances of winning are slim and none, frankly, on that. That leaves in the border states. California has a Democrat governor. New Mexico has a Democrat governor.
That leaves Texas Governor Greg Abbott as the only Republican border state governor who could implement this policy. What do you see coming from Governor Greg Abbott on this issue?
Emord: Governor Abbott has used the magic language of invasion. He has identified correctly that this is an invasion. And I think increasingly the people of these states, as they suffer more and more incursions that result in the destruction of private property, looting, criminality fentanyl overdose, all of this is reaching a level of intolerability for almost every American.
And as it happens, that is to say, as more destruction occurs and it becomes more widespread, I think a political consensus will arise that will push for action from either the feds or the states. And I think the states are going to either have to respond or suffer the wrath of voters.
Simon: Roger Simon here. What about the state’s attorneys general? I know here in Tennessee, we have a pretty good one named Skrmetti. They’ve been banding up together. I noticed on a number of things in red states, attorneys general, why not go in that route to rally them and then have a group of 12 or 15? Because every state is getting this, not just the border. Obviously, Florida is getting a lot too.
Emord: I think that’s definitely a good idea, particularly under article four, section four of the Constitution. A lot of people don’t realize this, but under article four, section four, the United States government is required to defend against invasions that happen in the states and against domestic violence.
That section reads, the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a Republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion and on application of the legislature or the executive when the legislature cannot be convened against domestic violence.
So that’s a guarantee that the Founding Fathers meant the federal government to honor. And I think what ought to happen, at a minimum, is that this section ought to be invoked by the attorneys general and by the governors and a demand placed before the federal government for action within a period of time.
And then the government ought to be sued for this purpose, to compel the government to enforce those parts of the Immigration Act that are not being enforced and that is responsible for the allowance of this unlimited entry into the southern border.
Leahy: That’s a very good point. But the reality, it seems to me, is that the Biden administration’s policy is to subvert our immigration laws and encourage this invasion. Your thoughts?
Emord: Absolutely. And that’s why this action by the states against the federal government in defense of the people is essential. And article four, section four is an anchor, and they can attach to it the proof that the immigration laws are not being enforced and that, of course, the invasion is taking place and the destruction needs to be documented.
One of the amazing things to me that is very disturbing is that I don’t see any serious activity to document each of the instances in which there has been illegality by illegal aliens entering the United States.
Simon: And also the percentage that is run by the cartels, which are obviously a mafia-like organization of immense power, and probably stronger than the mafia.
Emord: If you were to quantify, for example, the amount of destruction and the loss of life attendant to fentanyl and attendant to that which has been done, but attendant to the invasion that is taking place. How many businesses have been destroyed?
How many people have been raped or murdered or otherwise victimized or robbed? How much of property has been the subject of criminal trespass? Let’s document this and let’s document the economic cost that is being imposed on American citizens and then let’s confront the administration using these provisions of the Constitution again as anchors and demand that they take care of these people.
What are you going to do while you’re allowing this ruination of our nation? Why aren’t you paying for it? This is horrendous. You shouldn’t do it. But if you’re allowing it like this, you’re responsible for it. You pay for it, and this needs to be done.
Leahy: That’s a good rhetorical argument, but the Biden administration will tell you to go pound sand. They won’t do anything.
Simon: Sure.
Emord: The point is that if we don’t start creating a foundation for a groundswell of popular support against these actions, then we’re doing nothing. We have to at least do this. And litigation is an action that I think has to be taken.
But in the end, what we need to do is to have this evidence, enable the voter to appreciate it and rely upon the American people to recognize that indeed, this is a time bomb that is not just ticking, but is going off.
Listen to today’s show highlights, including this interview:
– – –
Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio.
