California: State of Insurrection

[berg80]

California must be harshly punished for this behavior.

No, it doesn't. trump, Homan, Noem, Bondi, Hegseth need to be harshly punished for their abuses and disregard for the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, it doesn't. trump, Homan, Noem, Bondi, Hegseth need to be harshly punished for their abuses and disregard for the law.

Lol. Well, get to it then, charlatan.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Part of that provision allows the federal deployment of National Guard forces if “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

Invoking a provision designed to quell a rebellion against the government is ludicrous. It's just the kind of excuse to abuse power the regime constantly looks for. Just as it did when it used the AEA to deport immigrants.

It's not likely you're capable of extended reading, but I Grok'd it for you.

Determining whether President Trump’s deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to anti-ICE protests on June 08, 2025, is illegal requires examining the legal framework, the specific context, and arguments on both sides. No definitive court ruling or consensus exists as of now to label it illegal, but the action is contentious. Let’s break it down.
Legal Framework

1. Title 10 Authority (10 U.S.C. § 12406):
   • Text: This statute allows the President to federalize National Guard units when: (1) the U.S. or its territories face invasion or danger of invasion; (2) there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against federal authority; or (3) the President cannot execute federal laws with regular forces.
   • Application: The White House memo, as reported by The Guardian, Reuters, and others, justifies the deployment under Title 10, citing “incidents of violence and disorder” and framing protests interfering with ICE agents as a “form of rebellion” against U.S. authority. The goal is to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions,” with the deployment set for 60 days or at the Defense Secretary’s discretion.
     
     
     
     
   • Legality: This appears permissible under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 if the President reasonably determines that violence against ICE agents (e.g., rocks, cement, Molotov cocktails reported in Paramount and Compton) prevents law execution (e.g., immigration laws under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) or constitutes a “danger of rebellion.” The law doesn’t explicitly require a governor’s consent, though it notes orders “shall be issued through the governors” in some contexts, leaving room for debate.
2. Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385):
   • Text: Prohibits the Army and Air Force (and by policy, other branches) from executing domestic laws unless authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
   • Relevance: Title 10, including § 12406, is a congressional exception to Posse Comitatus. Federalized National Guard troops can support federal functions (e.g., protecting ICE agents) without directly enforcing civilian laws. However, if troops engage in arrests or policing beyond protecting federal personnel/property, critics argue this could violate Posse Comitatus.
   • Debate: The Brennan Center for Justice and X posts highlight this risk, noting the Act bars federal troops from civilian law enforcement absent clear authorization (e.g., Insurrection Act). A post by
     @sentdefender
     claims the deployment “likely” violates Posse Comitatus, but this is unproven without evidence of troops overstepping their role.
3. Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255):
   • Context: This allows military deployment to suppress insurrections, rebellions, or domestic violence obstructing laws, often with a state’s request or when federal authority is defied.
   • Use Here: Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, relying on Title 10 instead. This avoids the higher threshold of proving an “insurrection” but fuels criticism that the move lacks sufficient justification.
     
     
   • Note: The Act remains relevant, as critics like Senator Adam Schiff warn Trump might later use it to escalate to martial law-like measures.

Context of the Deployment

• Protests: Anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles (Paramount, Compton, downtown) followed ICE raids arresting 118 people, including alleged gang members and others linked to crimes, per Homeland Security Investigations. Clashes involved protesters throwing rocks, cement, and Molotov cocktails, burning a car, and blocking roads, with federal agents using tear gas, flash-bangs, and pepper balls.
  
  
  
• Trump’s Rationale: The White House memo and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claim “violent mobs” attacked ICE agents, endangering federal functions. Border Czar Tom Homan and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defend the move, with Hegseth threatening active-duty Marines if violence persists.
  
  
  
• Opposition: Governor Gavin Newsom calls it “purposefully inflammatory” and “unnecessary,” arguing local police (LAPD, Sheriff’s Department) had no “unmet need” and controlled the situation. Mayor Karen Bass echoes this, saying the city can handle protests. The ACLU labels it an “abuse of power,” risking civil liberties.
  

Arguments for Illegality

• Lack of Necessity:
  • Claim: Newsom and Bass assert local law enforcement (LAPD, Sheriff’s deputies) managed the protests, with no request for federal troops. The LAPD disputed ICE’s claim of a two-hour delay, citing a 55-minute response amid traffic and tear gas. If no “unmet need” exists, the deployment might exceed Title 10’s scope (e.g., inability to execute laws with regular forces).
    
    
  • Support: Law professor Jessica Levinson notes this isn’t “routine,” typically requiring state consent or a clear emergency (e.g., natural disasters). Critics argue the scale of unrest—hundreds, not thousands, of protesters—doesn’t justify 2,000 troops.
• Posse Comitatus Violation:
  • Claim: If National Guard troops go beyond protecting ICE agents and engage in civilian arrests or policing, this could violate Posse Comitatus. The Brennan Center and X posts warn of this risk, especially with Hegseth’s threat of Marines, which would face stricter scrutiny under the Act.
    
    
    
  • Concern: The ACLU says federalizing troops endangers Angelenos and undermines the principle that the military shouldn’t police civilians.
• Bypassing State Authority:
  • Claim: Title 10 says orders “shall be issued through the governors,” but Trump overrode Newsom’s objections. Some, like Newsom and Senator Schiff, call this “unprecedented” and inflammatory, potentially stretching federal power beyond constitutional bounds.
    
    
    
  • Note: No clear precedent or court ruling deems this illegal, but it’s rare and contentious.

Arguments Against Illegality

• Statutory Authority:
  • Claim: 10 U.S.C. § 12406 explicitly allows the President to federalize the National Guard to execute laws or address rebellion. Reports of violence—Molotov cocktails, injured deputies, attacks on federal property—support Trump’s claim of a “form of rebellion” or law enforcement obstruction. Constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky concedes Trump “likely has the legal authority” under Title 10.
    
    
  • Precedent: In 1992, President George H.W. Bush federalized the California National Guard during the L.A. riots, though at the governor’s request. Title 10 doesn’t explicitly require consent, giving Trump leeway.
• Limited Role:
  • Claim: The memo specifies troops “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel,” not directly police civilians. This fits within Posse Comitatus exceptions, as supporting federal functions isn’t barred. X posts and reports confirm troops arrived within 24 hours to assist, not supplant, local forces.
• No Court Ruling:
  • Claim: No court has struck down a Title 10 deployment like this. Historical uses (e.g., border security, 1992 riots) suggest legality, and the burden is on critics to prove illegality.

Conclusion
President Trump’s deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is likely not illegal under current law. Title 10 (10 U.S.C. § 12406) grants the President authority to federalize the Guard to execute laws or address threats to federal authority, and reports of violence against ICE agents provide a plausible basis. It sidesteps Posse Comitatus if troops focus on protecting federal personnel, not policing civilians. However, the move is controversial—Newsom, Bass, and the ACLU argue it’s unnecessary, inflammatory, and risks overreach, especially if troops exceed their role or if state consent is deemed essential. No court has ruled it illegal as of June 08, 2025, but legal challenges, as predicted by law professor Jessica Levinson, could test this.

The deployment is lawful but divisive, hinging on the scale of unrest and the troops’ actions. Would you like me to explore potential legal challenges, the role of active-duty Marines, or specific protest incidents further?

 

[TemplarKormac]

NG has been federalized....Troops are rolling hard.

'Deranged': Newsom Fumes as Trump Federalizes National Guard, Threatens to Deploy Marines to Quell Anti-ICE Riots

Gavin Newsom took his frustrations to social media as Trump federalized 2,000 National Guard troops after a second day of anti-ICE riots.

www.breitbart.com

EXCELLENT

LET'S F**KING GO!

I have lost my patience with these people.

 

[22lcidw]

I agree. It's time to arrest the ICE who are the real Rioters and get their Boss out of Washington to a nice place just outside of Fountain, Co.

All of these years with the love of a strong central government. A strong central government over the states. That is a pure agenda of Progressives. Well now it does not seem so glorious to you. These people need to stop with the rioting/insurrectionist behaviors. For many years since President Obama this is the format chosen. And we have had these things before him. Seeing the foreign flags again proves this is a revolutionary group and insurrectionists also. And the Prog politicians are the vichy lovers of it.

 

[Blaster]

No, it doesn't. trump, Homan, Noem, Bondi, Hegseth need to be harshly punished for their abuses and disregard for the law.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[berg80]

Lol. Well, get to it then, charlatan.

The regime isn't going to enforce the law in instances when it breaks it, nitwit.

 

[Oddball]

 

[berg80]

I just heard Tom Homan on NPR saying the regime is going to continue to enforce the law. Except when it breaks it. Like illegally deporting Garcia and 139 others without due process and then ignoring multiple court orders.

 

[konradv]

You definitely do. Your kind are dangerous. Thuggish. Insane.

A threat to national security.

Trump/MAGA describing itself.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The regime isn't going to enforce the law in instances when it breaks it, nitwit.

And you will?

You're pathetic.

 

[Mac-7]

I just heard Tom Homan on NPR saying the regime is going to continue to enforce the law. Except when it breaks it. Like illegally deporting Garcia and 139 others without due process and then ignoring multiple court orders.

Garcia had a immigration hold against deportation to el salvador

Most of those deported do not

 

[TemplarKormac]

Trump/MAGA describing itself.

You're nothing but one of the dregs of society.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I just heard Tom Homan on NPR saying the regime is going to continue to enforce the law. Except when it breaks it. Like illegally deporting Garcia and 139 others without due process and then ignoring multiple court orders.

Lol. Due process. That's all you have.

 

[Mac-7]

And you will?

You're pathetic.

berg80 is a sideline warrior

He wont be throwing any Molotov coctails

 

[Oddball]

Staged and paid for....The leakers must be found and imprisoned for a long time.

ticosmpls ✝️🇺🇸 on GETTR : I'm calling on the #FBI to seize all of the footage collected by the hundreds of cameras in & around LA in order to det...

I'm calling on the #FBI to seize all of the footage collected by the hundreds of cameras in & around LA in order to determine what truck delivered these cinder blocks that were used on ICE agts Whoever paid for this goes to jail and must have their bank accts seized 😡

gettr.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

If and until these politicians take action to suppress this behavior, I wouldn't mind there being a declaration of martial law.

 

[HeyNorm]

Canada has a small population, only 38 million, and very limited resources, so can't handle any more people.
The US not only can handle more, but needs more workers so we can compete with China.

So, if I get this right, you want brown people working for slave wages?

Who exactly is the racist?

 

[Oddball]

Lol. Due process. That's all you have.

These peckerheads didn't give fuck #1 about due process, when dozens of J6-ers were held in pre-trial detention for four years.

They can all suck a dick.

 

[HeyNorm]

Lol?

We call that slavery where I come from.

I think we see who the real racist is. Let em stay so we can exploit the hell out of them.

Good lord, you can’t make this stuff up!