H.R.es50 - Recognizing that article I, section 10 of the United States Constitution explicitly reserves to the States the sovereign power to repel an invasion and defend their citizenry from the overwhelming and imminent danger posed by paramilitary, narco-terrorist cartels, terrorists and criminal actors who seized control of our southern border. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.Res.50 expresses the House of Representatives' view that states, particularly those along the southern border, possess the sovereign power under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution to repel invasions. It asserts that the Biden administration failed to adequately protect these states from the dangers posed by cartels, terrorists, and criminal actors, thus necessitating state action. The resolution also references Article IV, Section 4, regarding the federal government's duty to protect states from invasion.
Expected Effects
If passed, this resolution would signal Congressional support for states taking unilateral action to secure their borders. It could embolden states to implement more aggressive border security measures, potentially leading to conflicts with federal authorities. The resolution's findings are non-binding but could influence future legislation or legal challenges related to border security and states' rights.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Border Security: Could lead to more effective measures to deter illegal immigration and criminal activity.
- Reduced Crime: A more secure border could decrease the flow of drugs and other contraband, reducing crime rates.
- Protection of Communities: Enhanced border security could protect border communities from violence and property damage.
- Resource Allocation: States could allocate resources more effectively to address border-related issues.
- Assertion of States' Rights: Affirms the principle of states' rights and their ability to defend themselves.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for Abuse: States could use this resolution as justification for discriminatory or unconstitutional actions.
- Conflict with Federal Authority: State actions could conflict with federal immigration laws and policies, leading to legal challenges.
- Economic Disruption: Increased border security measures could disrupt trade and commerce.
- Humanitarian Concerns: Stricter border enforcement could lead to human rights abuses and create a humanitarian crisis.
- Damage to International Relations: Unilateral state action could strain relations with neighboring countries.
Constitutional Alignment
The resolution cites Article I, Section 10, which allows states to engage in war if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." It also references Article IV, Section 4, which requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. The resolution's constitutional alignment depends on whether the situation at the southern border constitutes an actual "invasion" as defined by the Constitution and legal precedent. This is a contested legal question.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).