Black gangs are indeed a problem, but the military doesn't want to do amything about them much, except deny they're a problem, while Biden's racist hack secretary of no defense runs around trying to run off all the white boys in combat units. We know why he's targeting them, of course.
I'm not sure if you realize it but the military does not operate within the US. It has no jurisdiction over gangs, black or other.
The 101st Airborne was sent into Little Rock to enforce integration at Central High School.
And do you know why?
Because the Governor refused to follow the US Supreme Court ruling in Brown Vs. the Board of Education. He refused to enforce or follow the ruling, and in fact called up his own National Guard to refuse to allow integration in schools.
Quite literally, they were a hair away from being declared a "State in Rebellion", and the use of Federal troops was seen as the only way to prevent it from turning into an outright rebellion. First, President Eisenhower nationalized the Arkansas National Guard, then sent them home and sent in the 101st to enforce the Supreme Court decision.
Was it radical? Yes, but then again so was the Governor mobilizing his own National Guard with orders to prevent any integration. And the message to other states considering doing similar things was read loud and clear. Ike would not stand for a state to openly refuse to recognize the ruling of the Supreme Court. And the Federal Troops were only called up because the State had done it first.
In other instances, Presidents themselves called up the Guard and used them similarly, but only used Federal troops this time as a response.
Thomas Jefferson resorted to the same use of Federal Army and Navy troops to enforce his embargoes in his second term; it was considered a military dictatorship at the time, and should be considered the same thing now when that tactic is resorted to. There are other methods that can be used, just as Madison said when rejecting a clause some wanted to include in the Constitution to allow the Federal government to use military force against a state, a power specifically proposed to be granted to the Federal govt. and then vigorously rejected at the Convention. It was illegal when Jefferson used it and it was illegal when Eisenhower used it. Just because they were allowed to get away with it doesn't mean it was legal to use that force.
You are aware that the Embargo Act of 1807 was not created by President Jefferson, are you not? But please, tell me more about the Army enforcing this.
And FYI, you might also want to look into his interactions with Congress over the Barbary Wars.
I have absolutely no idea where you are going with this, it does not sound like anything in history that I am aware of. So please give some kind of references to this use of the Army to enforce the Embargo Act and invade states.
And the President nationalizing the National Guard is not illegal. It is clear as a bell right in the law. I present to you 10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service:
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
The President does in fact have the authority to call up the military in response to a possible insurrection of a state or part of a state. And right there it specifically talk about "rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States;". And refusing to follow the mandate of the US Supreme Court pretty much includes that.
Yea, I get it already. History and actually knowing the laws is not a strong thing with you, everything is just based on your beliefs and emotions. But I think that it is legal, or else that part of the United States Code would have been thrown out decades ago. And it is still there so I guess that means it actually is legal.
