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:

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.

Chain of command. Do keep up. All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of U.S. state governments and the U.S. federal government. Guess who runs that us federal government??

[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: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?

You think shall is permissive? Wow. I see you didn’t provide any cites.

[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.

Nut job alert!

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

Lol.

You are going to be very confused when this ruling doesn’t last the day.

[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: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?

You think shall is permissive? Wow. I see you didn’t provide any cites.

Sorry 1L that you didn’t move forward in your other classes. If Congress wanted to require governor approval, they would have said so.

[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.

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.

Chain of command. Do keep up. All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of U.S. state governments and the U.S. federal government. Guess who runs that us federal government??

Apparently no one, since the federal government/Pentagon has not processed their paperwork and the NG is currently not yet being paid.

[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: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?

You think shall is permissive? Wow. I see you didn’t provide any cites.

Sorry 1L that you didn’t move forward in your other classes. If Congress wanted to require governor approval, they would have said so.

Congress said so.

[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.

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.

Chain of command. Do keep up. All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of U.S. state governments and the U.S. federal government. Guess who runs that us federal government??

They are only under the control of the federal government when called into federal service in accordance with the law.

[Anonymous]

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

Again, when did Nixon do that? You fugitives from r/conservative don’t read.

[Anonymous]

The decision of whether to call up the National Guard is the President's, not subject to veto by a governor. 'The orders shall issue' refers to the specific orders of where to go, when, etc.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[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: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?

Must, and shall are both mandatory directives. May is variable, permissive. Where'd you go to school, DCUM Law?

[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: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?

Must, and shall are both mandatory directives. May is variable, permissive. Where'd you go to school, DCUM Law?

“shall” is actually ambiguous and has been widely held to be so: https://feltg.com/shall-will-may-or-must/

“Shall” is way overused in legal drafting - it is legalese that should be replaced with “must”.

[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.

Where in Article 2, section 2 does it sau that? Here's the text.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.""

Commander in chief? That just means he is the top general who is to do as instructed by his masters. The electorate? No. Congress is the ultimate authority. This is evidenced by Article I, section 8, clause 15. "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" and Article I, section 8, clause 11 "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;".

That is the text of the Constitution. So within that framework and the powers delegated by Congress to the President (I thought the Right hated delegated powers), the President may act. He does not have the power to randomly do what ever strikes his orange fancy.

[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.

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.

Chain of command. Do keep up. All members of the National Guard are also members of the organized militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of U.S. state governments and the U.S. federal government. Guess who runs that us federal government??

Factually, Congress does. This was intended so that authoritarians like Trump couldn't exercise too much power. He is chief administrator and top general. The President is supposed to execute policy not create it. Of course over the years Congress has abdicated its responsibility in that regard and we, on a bipartisan basis, have ceded much more power to the presidency that was ever contemplated.