Judge says Trump illegally deployed National Guard to help with LA protests, must return control
- Thread starter Crepitus
- Start date
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
This demonstrates you do not know the law and precedent surrounding Trump's actions with the National Guard.
It would suit you well to read posts that do. You may learn a thing or two.
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Just because you say it's unconstitutional does not make it so. You must demonstrate why.
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Sigh. The sophistry is yours—nothing but emotion and pure insistence. You have not demonstrated why it is unconstitutional.
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 83,437
- 41,773
- 2,615
I guarantee every precedent to you find will have an invocation of the Insurrection Act
Trump has not done that
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Except that the part of the law Trump invoked was not part of the Insurrection Act.
Namely, 10 USC 12406.
The Insurrection Act is 10 USC 251-255
Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 83,437
- 41,773
- 2,615
Again.
Every precedent you cite will have an invocation of the Insurrection Act
Trump has not done so
Precedent.
Do you know what that word means?
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 94,813
- 45,150
- 2,300
It means not part of the actual law and your call for it means nothing.
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
No, it is not. 10 USC 12406 is not part of the Insurrection Act.
You are being incredibly dense.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 154,329
- 79,938
- 2,645
Judge cannot order the Executive Branch to act as he sees fit
Trump needs to sign this EO:
No matter what Trump does, no matter what the issue is, Dims will shop for the nearest left-wing judge to tie Trump's hands from getting anything accomplished.
This is who these people are, they want a civil war, they want to destroy what's left of the west.
WEATHER53
Diamond Member
- Apr 13, 2017
- 35,564
- 24,100
- 1,915
Funny it says National guard and not state guards so thatv means POTUS, the Nation in National, runs it.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 34,292
- 27,216
- 2,905
It will be stayed but in the meantime it will be ignored. Removing the national guard right now would be tantamount to suicide.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 34,292
- 27,216
- 2,905
Don't be an idiot..... Chaos was already there.
What you're watching is a state within a state trying to break out. And it happens to be an alien state. Can't be allowed.... Cannot be condoned.....
And Trump will definitely ignore the order with impunity. It boils down to tough shit .... Say whatever you want but you can't enforce it.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 67,588
- 63,584
- 3,605
I would like anyone who believes Trump overstepped his authority, to tell me why it was A-OK for JFK and LBJ to call up the national guard in support of federal law over the objections of governors. . . but when Trump does the same, it is "over-reach?"
I just don't get the logic here TBH.
www.al.com
". . . The second point needs more explanation and historical context. The president can “call forth” the National Guard of any state or territory to enforce federal authority or suppress domestic violence. There are only four precedents within the last century where a president has taken the National Guard away from a rogue governor. These instances occurred in the decade after the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1954 that racially separate schools, no matter how “equal,” were unconstitutional in Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education.23 It took a couple of years for the majority of states to comply with the court’s monumental decision and, in some cases, there was minor violent opposition. In fact, it was just two years after the decision that the governors of Kentucky and Tennessee used their National Guard troops to assist in school desegregation.24 But the most familiar instances of National Guard troops in school desegregation revolve around the few governors who chose to defy the law. . . ."
Governors pushing sanctuary state laws are clearly "rogue," so I am not seeing why it is not O.K. for Trump to enforce federal law, but it was O.K. for those other presidents to do so.
Someone make it make sense please.
I just don't get the logic here TBH.
What happened the last time a U.S. president overrode a state to deploy the National Guard
60 years ago, Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops into Alabama to protect civil rights marchers
Kennedy federalized National Guard to integrate Alabama public schools (Sept. 10, 1963)
President John F. Kennedy SEPTEMBER 10, 1963 -- President John F. Kennedy federalized the 17,000 member Alabama National Guard to allow black students to attend nine previously all-white schools in Birmingham and across the state."Governor Wallace has refused to respect...
www.al.com
". . . The second point needs more explanation and historical context. The president can “call forth” the National Guard of any state or territory to enforce federal authority or suppress domestic violence. There are only four precedents within the last century where a president has taken the National Guard away from a rogue governor. These instances occurred in the decade after the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1954 that racially separate schools, no matter how “equal,” were unconstitutional in Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education.23 It took a couple of years for the majority of states to comply with the court’s monumental decision and, in some cases, there was minor violent opposition. In fact, it was just two years after the decision that the governors of Kentucky and Tennessee used their National Guard troops to assist in school desegregation.24 But the most familiar instances of National Guard troops in school desegregation revolve around the few governors who chose to defy the law. . . ."
Governors pushing sanctuary state laws are clearly "rogue," so I am not seeing why it is not O.K. for Trump to enforce federal law, but it was O.K. for those other presidents to do so.
Someone make it make sense please.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 67,588
- 63,584
- 3,605
So why was it not unconstitutional when JFK and LBJ did it?
- Sep 16, 2012
- 67,588
- 63,584
- 3,605
From the OP's link;
“Courts did not interfere when President Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation. Courts did not interfere when President Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail in the midst of a postal strike. And courts should not interfere here either,” the department said.
“Our position is this is not subject to judicial review,” Shumate told the judge.
Breyer, who at one point waved a copy of the Constitution, said he disagreed.
“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is of course limited in that authority. That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said.
But no response as to why this is different than when IKE nationalized the guard, why? Won't someone tell us what is the difference here?
“Courts did not interfere when President Eisenhower deployed the military to protect school desegregation. Courts did not interfere when President Nixon deployed the military to deliver the mail in the midst of a postal strike. And courts should not interfere here either,” the department said.
“Our position is this is not subject to judicial review,” Shumate told the judge.
Breyer, who at one point waved a copy of the Constitution, said he disagreed.
“We’re talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is of course limited in that authority. That’s the difference between a constitutional government and King George,” he said.
But no response as to why this is different than when IKE nationalized the guard, why? Won't someone tell us what is the difference here?
martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 94,813
- 45,150
- 2,300
He got his marching orders from the DNC to make a King reference, what a hack.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Palantir, Meta, OpenAI execs to commission into Army reserve, form ‘Detachment 201’- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
LGBTQ+ activist thinking of moving back to US
- Started by Polishprince
- Replies: 1
