Judge Charles Breyer says Trump sent NG troops into LA Illegally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress clearly spelled out when and how the president can federalize the National Guard. And here, President Trump did not do any of it.

There's some IANAL on twitter saying that because the statute says "shall" instead of "must" that Trump doesn't have to go through Newsom. Bro...

A president doesn’t need a governor’s permission. See Nixon.

When did Nixon call out the National Guard without a governor’s request?

1965, Selma. Sorry, Johnson. Same difference.

Alabama didn’t need to consent.

Judges didn’t need to sign off on it.

Pure article 2.

Nixon used a different law, not the one trump used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

He called the governor but doesn’t need his permission. History has shown this. A governor doesn’t control the military. It’s the president’s determination what the threat level is and it’s for the electorate to handle if he oversteps, not the judiciary.

Governors control the NG and the constitution specifically gives congress the authority to set the conditions for when the NG can be called into federal service.

Calling the NG into federal service is an Art II authority. It happens when POTUS says it happens. Not justiciable.

Wrong. Article I, Section 9: “The Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

You have no idea what this case is even about and it shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

Does the governor have a veto?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress clearly spelled out when and how the president can federalize the National Guard. And here, President Trump did not do any of it.

There's some IANAL on twitter saying that because the statute says "shall" instead of "must" that Trump doesn't have to go through Newsom. Bro...

A president doesn’t need a governor’s permission. See Nixon.

When did Nixon call out the National Guard without a governor’s request?

1965, Selma. Sorry, Johnson. Same difference.

Alabama didn’t need to consent.

Judges didn’t need to sign off on it.

Pure article 2.

Nixon used a different law, not the one trump used.

Doesn’t matter. Trump still doesn’t need Newsom’s permission, and history shows the use of the national guard over a governor’s consent.

Why do you think Breyer put a hold on this? He knows it’s going nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

He called the governor but doesn’t need his permission. History has shown this. A governor doesn’t control the military. It’s the president’s determination what the threat level is and it’s for the electorate to handle if he oversteps, not the judiciary.

Governors control the NG and the constitution specifically gives congress the authority to set the conditions for when the NG can be called into federal service.

Calling the NG into federal service is an Art II authority. It happens when POTUS says it happens. Not justiciable.

Wrong. Article I, Section 9: “The Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

You have no idea what this case is even about and it shows.

You’re making shit up and it shows

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

Does the governor have a veto?

Nope. It doesn’t say that. It’s a chain of command not a permission seeking structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress clearly spelled out when and how the president can federalize the National Guard. And here, President Trump did not do any of it.

There's some IANAL on twitter saying that because the statute says "shall" instead of "must" that Trump doesn't have to go through Newsom. Bro...

A president doesn’t need a governor’s permission. See Nixon.

When did Nixon call out the National Guard without a governor’s request?

1965, Selma. Sorry, Johnson. Same difference.

Alabama didn’t need to consent.

Judges didn’t need to sign off on it.

Pure article 2.

Nixon used a different law, not the one trump used.

Doesn’t matter. Trump still doesn’t need Newsom’s permission, and history shows the use of the national guard over a governor’s consent.

Why do you think Breyer put a hold on this? He knows it’s going nowhere.

The legal authority matters a lot. In fact, it’s the only thing that matters in the lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

Does the governor have a veto?

Nope. It doesn’t say that. It’s a chain of command not a permission seeking structure.

Sure, congress put those words in there for no reason at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

He called the governor but doesn’t need his permission. History has shown this. A governor doesn’t control the military. It’s the president’s determination what the threat level is and it’s for the electorate to handle if he oversteps, not the judiciary.

Governors control the NG and the constitution specifically gives congress the authority to set the conditions for when the NG can be called into federal service.

Calling the NG into federal service is an Art II authority. It happens when POTUS says it happens. Not justiciable.

Wrong. Article I, Section 9: “The Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

You have no idea what this case is even about and it shows.

You’re making shit up and it shows

Making shit up is what Breyer just did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

Does the governor have a veto?

Nope. It doesn’t say that. It’s a chain of command not a permission seeking structure.

Sure, congress put those words in there for no reason at all

Shall and must are two different phrases.

It doesn’t even make logical sense. Why would a governor need to give permission for the commander in chief to act to protect federal property?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

He called the governor but doesn’t need his permission. History has shown this. A governor doesn’t control the military. It’s the president’s determination what the threat level is and it’s for the electorate to handle if he oversteps, not the judiciary.

Governors control the NG and the constitution specifically gives congress the authority to set the conditions for when the NG can be called into federal service.

Calling the NG into federal service is an Art II authority. It happens when POTUS says it happens. Not justiciable.

Wrong. Article I, Section 9: “The Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

And they did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress clearly spelled out when and how the president can federalize the National Guard. And here, President Trump did not do any of it.

There's some IANAL on twitter saying that because the statute says "shall" instead of "must" that Trump doesn't have to go through Newsom. Bro...

A president doesn’t need a governor’s permission. See Nixon.

When did Nixon call out the National Guard without a governor’s request?

1965, Selma. Sorry, Johnson. Same difference.

Alabama didn’t need to consent.

Judges didn’t need to sign off on it.

Pure article 2.

Nixon used a different law, not the one trump used.

Doesn’t matter. Trump still doesn’t need Newsom’s permission, and history shows the use of the national guard over a governor’s consent.

Why do you think Breyer put a hold on this? He knows it’s going nowhere.

The legal authority matters a lot. In fact, it’s the only thing that matters in the lawsuit.

Correct, and a Northern California district court has no say so in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

Does the governor have a veto?

Nope. It doesn’t say that. It’s a chain of command not a permission seeking structure.

Since it's chain of command, and Trump and Hegseth violated it, the paperwork for pay, housing, food, healthcare, hasn't gone through and the NG is sleeping on cots outdoors and hungry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

Does the governor have a veto?

Nope. It doesn’t say that. It’s a chain of command not a permission seeking structure.

Sure, congress put those words in there for no reason at all

Shall and must are two different phrases.

It doesn’t even make logical sense. Why would a governor need to give permission for the commander in chief to act to protect federal property?

Wtf? They are the same!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry Newsom, you aren’t the commander in chief even if you are good at selecting San Fran judges.

Curious if the 9th circuit plays this game and makes scotus overturn it.

The statute trump used literally says “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

He called the governor but doesn’t need his permission. History has shown this. A governor doesn’t control the military. It’s the president’s determination what the threat level is and it’s for the electorate to handle if he oversteps, not the judiciary.

Governors control the NG and the constitution specifically gives congress the authority to set the conditions for when the NG can be called into federal service.

Calling the NG into federal service is an Art II authority. It happens when POTUS says it happens. Not justiciable.

Wrong. Article I, Section 9: “The Congress shall have Power…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

And they did that.

Yes they did. And one of the conditions they put on it was that the president is required to issue the orders through the governor. Trump didn’t comply with that condition so he acted illegally.