Judge Charles Breyer says Trump sent NG troops into LA Illegally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course courts have a say in our three branch government!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A federal court cannot interpret federal law in a case before it? Interesting take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course courts have a say in our three branch government!

Enjoy the scotus decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A federal court cannot interpret federal law in a case before it? Interesting take.

This is a pure article 2 power. No, the courts can’t usurp that.

[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;”

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.

Congress did not require governor’s permission. Read it again.

[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.”

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!

They really are not. This is standard legal language and they are not similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course courts have a say in our three branch government!

Enjoy the scotus decision.

DP. SCOTUS will say what they will say and I will respect that. You will only respect it if they say what you want to hear.

I believe in the rule of law.

[Anonymous]

SCOTUS will bend to Trump. the irony will be in a year or so when Trump completely marginalizes SCOTUS to irrelevance.

[Anonymous]

Remember: Trump needed Pelosi’s permission, but he doesn’t need Newsom’s. I guess it depends on what the protesters are protesting, amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A federal court cannot interpret federal law in a case before it? Interesting take.

This is a pure article 2 power. No, the courts can’t usurp that.

Where does article 2 say the president can call the NG into federal service in violation of the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember: Trump needed Pelosi’s permission, but he doesn’t need Newsom’s. I guess it depends on what the protesters are protesting, amirite?

+1

[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.”

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!

They really are not. This is standard legal language and they are not similar.

Yes they are the same. Shall is used all the time in statutes. Must is rarely used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course courts have a say in our three branch government!

Enjoy the scotus decision.

DP. SCOTUS will say what they will say and I will respect that. You will only respect it if they say what you want to hear.

I believe in the rule of law.

You’re right. I don’t believe any district judge can overrule a president when it comes to his determination of military action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

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!

They really are not. This is standard legal language and they are not similar.

Yes they are the same. Shall is used all the time in statutes. Must is rarely used.

You’re welcome to think shall means must even though those are clearly two different words with two different legal interpretations.

I look forward to the overturning of this ridiculous ruling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course courts have a say in our three branch government!

Enjoy the scotus decision.

DP. SCOTUS will say what they will say and I will respect that. You will only respect it if they say what you want to hear.

I believe in the rule of law.

You’re right. I don’t believe any district judge can overrule a president when it comes to his determination of military action.

If the judge had reached posse comitatus, you would think the judge cannot "overrule" the president?