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]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]

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.
[/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