It's the Fed's Job to protect OUR borders.
If they won't, the states have every right to protect Their citizens from invasion.

 So why did TX omit the "Unconstitutionality" in their own defense?  They don't want to have an absolute win and have it dismissed?  An action can be wrong, and also not violate the US Constitution.

 

 

 

Why don't you include that you appreciate the fact that the Fed's have chosen to ignore their constitutional requirements to protect the border? And have gone against common sense by suing every state that had the temerity to protect their own borders?


 Because I am addressing the question you actually asked, not the supporting points you brought up After I wrote my post.  You clearly asked:

"You think Suing the states trying to protect their own borders was constitutional?"

 That, to me, read like you are asking if a human thinks "Suing" TX, among others, for trying to protect their own borders, is "Constitutional".  Yes.  Nothing in the appeal mentions it even, so either literally every human involved is wrong and you are right, or it's not an "Unconstitutional" action.

 An action can be wrong, like Suing a state, and also not be Unconstitutional.  Suing another state specifically how it was done with TX is not against the US Constitution.  Why did TX omit the "Unconstitutionality" in their own defense?  

TC every lefty and too many fake Republicans fought Trump at every turn. You Know that, because you loved it. So, he didn't manage to get it done.

The Bipartisan bill that you so fail to understand was going to screw America some more.

Is it that you believe,
that suing a State,
for doing what the US Constitution says it will do,
BECAUSE, it is a political view,
promoted by the current POTUS,
 (Or his Puppet Masters)
Is perfectly OK ?

 No.  I just don't think that specific action, "Suing" is against the US Constitution.  It's not right, but every wrong thing in this country is not in the Constitution.


Because it would be just like saying,
       'Water is Wet'

 That won't apply in US Court.  Things aren't implied there, you have to state them as record.  TX, or anyone else never claimed the suit was "Unconstitutional" because it isn't.  They won the initial appeal by using actual US law and not "water is wet" implications or claiming something that is categorically false.

 Like I said, "unconstitutional" is a tired and usually incorrect argument.  People just want to be able to say it's against the Constitution.  

The feds, according To the constitution, are to protect the people from invasion.
They chose not to. In fact, they sued the states for trying to protect themselves.
Play whatever games you want. I'm finished with this.


 Using that logic literally everyone involved in the TX case is wrong and you are right.  Suing is not against the US Constitution.  If anything the lack of providing assistance, like alternatives to buoys that violate the Rivers and Harbors Act would be.  You have the right idea, but the wrong application on the wrong subject.

 The TX case is leveraged on the Rivers and Harbors Act, and suing using that leverage is not a violation of the Constitution.  Ordering the removal without suing would be against the US Constitution essentially on the grounds you are speaking of in Article IV, Section 4.  

 But since you don't agree with the Feds actions, you want to oversimplify it and just go the inaccurate "Against the Constitution" argument instead if using actual US law and the actual US Constitution.  

 
Homeowner dials 911.
My house is on fire! Send help!
Firemen show up.
Shut the water off
Cut his hose into foot long pieces.
Leave.

The feds,helping.


Or:

Homeowner dials 911.
My house is on fire! Send help!
Firemen show up, let the homeowner use their hose.
Leave the water on.
Do nothing to his hose.
Sue because the homeowner is using his hose to access water regulated under the Rivers and Harbors Act.


The feds,helping.


 This is no different than you arguing about the search and seizure process and the fact that US Constitutional protections don't have to outline everything you are allowed to own.  

Even though Trump wasn't able to accomplish what we wanted, he accomplished a great deal. You benefited. You suffered under biden, as did we all.
What did biden accomplish For America?