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:

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.

Nut job alert!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What’s the difference then? Make sure to provide cites.

[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.

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?

Commander in chief. Article 2 section 2 includes the ability of the President to deploy the national guard for federal missions including domestically in the case of rebellion etc.

Note that the judge simply disagrees about the nature of the rebellion. That is a determination for the president not a judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They have the same legal interpretation. Except when results-oriented opinions find that they don't, see e.g. when the Court found that "adjacent" does not mean "adjacent" wrt the Clean Water Act.

[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.

What country do you live in?

[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.

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?

Commander in chief. Article 2 section 2 includes the ability of the President to deploy the national guard for federal missions including domestically in the case of rebellion etc.

Note that the judge simply disagrees about the nature of the rebellion. That is a determination for the president not a judge.

A protest is not a rebellion. Riots are not a rebellion. This one's easy. And of course it's justiciable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What’s the difference then? Make sure to provide cites.

Must - mandatory
Shall - variable, permissive

Didn’t they teach this to you as a 1L?

[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:

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?

Commander in chief. Article 2 section 2 includes the ability of the President to deploy the national guard for federal missions including domestically in the case of rebellion etc.

Note that the judge simply disagrees about the nature of the rebellion. That is a determination for the president not a judge.

A protest is not a rebellion. Riots are not a rebellion. This one's easy. And of course it's justiciable.

Determination is for president not judiciary.

[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:

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.

What country do you live in?

The one where this ruling was already appealed, has a hold, and will be overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They have the same legal interpretation. Except when results-oriented opinions find that they don't, see e.g. when the Court found that "adjacent" does not mean "adjacent" wrt the Clean Water Act.

They do not.

[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.

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?

Commander in chief. Article 2 section 2 includes the ability of the President to deploy the national guard for federal missions including domestically in the case of rebellion etc.

Note that the judge simply disagrees about the nature of the rebellion. That is a determination for the president not a judge.

Your "etc." is glossing over some pretty important "stuff."

[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.

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?

Commander in chief. Article 2 section 2 includes the ability of the President to deploy the national guard for federal missions including domestically in the case of rebellion etc.

Note that the judge simply disagrees about the nature of the rebellion. That is a determination for the president not a judge.

Wrong again. It says he is commander in chief of the militia when called into federal service. But article 1 says congress gets to decide when he is allowed to do that.

[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.

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.

Nut job alert!

Standard thinking actually. You should join the real world sometime.

[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:

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?

Commander in chief. Article 2 section 2 includes the ability of the President to deploy the national guard for federal missions including domestically in the case of rebellion etc.

Note that the judge simply disagrees about the nature of the rebellion. That is a determination for the president not a judge.

A protest is not a rebellion. Riots are not a rebellion. This one's easy. And of course it's justiciable.

Determination is for president not judiciary.

Wrong again. You are having a bad night.

[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.

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.

Nut job alert!

Standard thinking actually. You should join the real world sometime.

Lol.