Elizabeth Jo

What's the rationale here?

Well, part of it is that Trump declared that the federal government had to take steps to fulfill its obligations under Article 4's protection clause.

So you can see how a lot of this is getting politicized in ways that I think is, you know, it's going to be hard to imagine how we'd have legal answers to this.

Because, again, so much of this seems to be a political determination.

If this is really warlike in some way, although even though it doesn't seem like it.

You know, it's a sort of determination that courts are reluctant to say this is correct.

This is a correct determination of invasion.

Right.

And at least in the legitimate foreign policy arena, courts tend not to second guess what the president United States does.

So it would really be up to a court to kind of step in and say, we're going to do something totally different and decide, no, this is not an invasion.

Yeah.

That's why that case still pending over the buoys is a more dry navigable rivers argument.

Right.

And so that's Article 4.

And I thought today we'd also connect this to another aspect of the Constitution, and that's the Tenth Amendment, right?

Because the Tenth Amendment today is a very important limitation on the federal government and what it can do to the states.

So here's what it says.

Right.

Sounds like it just described something about the states.

You know, I think any smart high school student would say, well, that doesn't do anything, right?