Reply to Judge Charles Breyer says Trump sent NG troops into LA Illegally

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Judge Charles Breyer says Trump sent NG troops into LA Illegally "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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...[/quote]

A president doesn’t need a governor’s permission. See Nixon.[/quote]

When did Nixon call out the National Guard without a governor’s request?[/quote]

1965, Selma. Sorry, Johnson. Same difference.

Alabama didn’t need to consent.

Judges didn’t need to sign off on it.

Pure article 2.[/quote]

Nixon used a different law, not the one trump used.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

Correct, and a Northern California district court has no say so in this. [/quote]

A federal court cannot interpret federal law in a case before it?  Interesting take.[/quote]

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

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

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.[/quote]

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

Determination is for president not judiciary.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics