Donald Trump’s pledge to build a wall across the US/ Mexican border may be deemed unconstitutional because it would require federal troops to be billeted on the borders of southern US states.
The wall was a big part of the President’s election pledge and according to a recent leaked transcript he and the Mexican president have already been immersed in dialogue over how to construct the vast infrastructural project.
Last week the House approved $1.6 billion to fund the first instalment of President Trump’s border wall, surmounting Democrats’ unanimous opposition and giving the White House a significant though potentially short-lived victory, the Washington Post reported.
The legislation now heads to the Senate, where Democrats have signalled that they will resist any money for the border wall.
But they may not have to.
According to a TLE source the US/ Mexico wall may fall at the first hurdle on constitutional grounds because it would require a federally mandated force billeted on the southern borders of some of the most fiercely independent states in the union, like Texas.
The constitution specifically prohibits “the billeting of Federal Troops” in the states, which means the force needed to guard the wall would be unconstitutional by definition.
That is also a big reason why Mexico has to pay for the wall – because it would then technically be their wall, and these constitutional issues would become less important.
According to our source, to police the wall you’d need a federally mandated force, or ‘standing army’, of around 50,000 federal troops.
States such as Texas may seceed if that many ‘gubment’ troops were put in their state.
RELATED
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/trump-watch-white-house-leaking-no-seriously-really-leaking/04/08/
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/far-right-hire-ship-disrupt-search-rescue-missions-mediterranean/29/06/
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/trumps-great-wall-of-america/08/09/