| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:27:02 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,684 |
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItAs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >land will declare that weAre in the middle of another constitutional
crisis. ItAs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >owar-ravagedo Portland, Oregon, and ohellholeo Chicago, where anti-ICE >protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did
the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are
not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his oautocratico >National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenAt going
to let the lower courtAs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit >issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen
odo not need to return to their home states.o Basically, the Seventh
Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to >consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumpAs deployments
under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically
with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumpAs >deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and >whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all
of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to >wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationAs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a >Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
olike a war zone.o In the same report, another resident said itAs been
o115 days of hello and that oI only come out during the day,o because
that is when oall the black-covered antifa people arenAt here. They come >with the night. In the daytime itAs all these little old senior people.o >Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned >violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807, >collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >wider poweruand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
oconsiderso it onecessaryo whenever he oconsiderso that ounlawful >combinations, obstructions, or assemblageso are making it oimpracticable
to enforce the laws of the United States.o It also allows him to use
troops or the Guard as he oconsiders necessaryo to osuppresso odomestic >violenceo that oopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States.o
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S. >history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to
Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S. >history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to
Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial >second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the >presidentuand the president aloneudetermines whether federal troops are >necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion,
othe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,o and ohis decision is conclusive upon all >other persons.o Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump
very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago >under the Insurrection Act even if he didnAt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumpAs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular. >Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If youAre like me, you donAt want to see tanks or >servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But
as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen,
and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists
from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess
is that most Americans donAt object.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItrCOs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >> land will declare that werCOre in the middle of another constitutional
crisis. ItrCOs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls
rCLwar-ravagedrCY Portland, Oregon, and rCLhellholerCY Chicago, where anti-ICE
protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did
the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are
not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his rCLautocraticrCY
National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenrCOt going
to let the lower courtrCOs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit
issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen
rCLdo not need to return to their home states.rCY Basically, the Seventh
Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to
consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumprCOs deployments
under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically
with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumprCOs
deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and
whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all
of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to
wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationrCOs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a
Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
rCLlike a war zone.rCY In the same report, another resident said itrCOs been >> rCL115 days of hellrCY and that rCLI only come out during the day,rCY because
that is when rCLall the black-covered antifa people arenrCOt here. They come >> with the night. In the daytime itrCOs all these little old senior people.rCY >> Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned
violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president
wider powerrCoand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the
president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
rCLconsidersrCY it rCLnecessaryrCY whenever he rCLconsidersrCY that rCLunlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblagesrCY are making it rCLimpracticable >> to enforce the laws of the United States.rCY It also allows him to use
troops or the Guard as he rCLconsiders necessaryrCY to rCLsuppressrCY rCLdomestic
violencerCY that rCLopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States.rCY
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to
Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to
Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentrCoand the president alonerCodetermines whether federal troops are >> necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion,
rCLthe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,rCY and rCLhis decision is conclusive upon all >> other persons.rCY Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump
very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago
under the Insurrection Act even if he didnrCOt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumprCOs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular.
Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If yourCOre like me, you donrCOt want to see tanks or >> servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But
as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen,
and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess
is that most Americans donrCOt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
On 10/14/2025 2:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItAs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >>> land will declare that weAre in the middle of another constitutional
crisis. ItAs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >>> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >>> owar-ravagedo Portland, Oregon, and ohellholeo Chicago, where anti-ICE
protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did >>> the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are
not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his oautocratico
National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenAt going
to let the lower courtAs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit
issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen >>> odo not need to return to their home states.o Basically, the Seventh
Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to
consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumpAs deployments
under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically
with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumpAs
deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and
whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all
of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to
wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationAs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a
Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
olike a war zone.o In the same report, another resident said itAs been
o115 days of hello and that oI only come out during the day,o because
that is when oall the black-covered antifa people arenAt here. They come >>> with the night. In the daytime itAs all these little old senior people.o >>> Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned
violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >>> wider poweruand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >>> president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
oconsiderso it onecessaryo whenever he oconsiderso that ounlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblageso are making it oimpracticable >>> to enforce the laws of the United States.o It also allows him to use
troops or the Guard as he oconsiders necessaryo to osuppresso odomestic
violenceo that oopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States.o
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentuand the president aloneudetermines whether federal troops are
necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion,
othe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,o and ohis decision is conclusive upon all
other persons.o Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump
very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago
under the Insurrection Act even if he didnAt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumpAs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular.
Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If youAre like me, you donAt want to see tanks or >>> servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But >>> as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen, >>> and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>>from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess
is that most Americans donAt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
Some day noah will actually read the whole article before he comments.
Politically, TrumpAs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular.
Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If youAre like me, you donAt want to see tanks or
servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But
as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen,
and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess
is that most Americans donAt object.
On 10/14/2025 2:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItrCOs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >>> land will declare that werCOre in the middle of another constitutional
crisis. ItrCOs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >>> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >>> rCLwar-ravagedrCY Portland, Oregon, and rCLhellholerCY Chicago, where anti-ICE
protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did >>> the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are
not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his rCLautocraticrCY >>> National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenrCOt going >>> to let the lower courtrCOs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit >>> issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen >>> rCLdo not need to return to their home states.rCY Basically, the Seventh >>> Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to
consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumprCOs deployments >>> under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically
with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumprCOs
deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and
whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all
of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to
wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationrCOs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a
Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
rCLlike a war zone.rCY In the same report, another resident said itrCOs been
rCL115 days of hellrCY and that rCLI only come out during the day,rCY because
that is when rCLall the black-covered antifa people arenrCOt here. They come
with the night. In the daytime itrCOs all these little old senior people.rCY
Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned
violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >>> wider powerrCoand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >>> president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
rCLconsidersrCY it rCLnecessaryrCY whenever he rCLconsidersrCY that rCLunlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblagesrCY are making it rCLimpracticable
to enforce the laws of the United States.rCY It also allows him to use
troops or the Guard as he rCLconsiders necessaryrCY to rCLsuppressrCY rCLdomestic
violencerCY that rCLopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the >>> United States.rCY
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentrCoand the president alonerCodetermines whether federal troops are >>> necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion,
rCLthe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,rCY and rCLhis decision is conclusive upon all >>> other persons.rCY Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump >>> very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago
under the Insurrection Act even if he didnrCOt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumprCOs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular. >>> Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If yourCOre like me, you donrCOt want to see tanks or
servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But >>> as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen, >>> and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists
from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my
guess is that most Americans donrCOt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help.-a Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
Some day noah will actually read the whole article before he comments.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItrCOs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >> land will declare that werCOre in the middle of another constitutional
crisis. ItrCOs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls
rCLwar-ravagedrCY Portland, Oregon, and rCLhellholerCY Chicago, where anti-ICE
protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did
the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are
not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his rCLautocraticrCY
National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenrCOt going
to let the lower courtrCOs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit
issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen
rCLdo not need to return to their home states.rCY Basically, the Seventh
Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to
consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumprCOs deployments
under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically
with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumprCOs
deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and
whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all
of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to
wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationrCOs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a
Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
rCLlike a war zone.rCY In the same report, another resident said itrCOs been >> rCL115 days of hellrCY and that rCLI only come out during the day,rCY because
that is when rCLall the black-covered antifa people arenrCOt here. They come >> with the night. In the daytime itrCOs all these little old senior people.rCY >> Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned
violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president
wider powerrCoand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the
president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
rCLconsidersrCY it rCLnecessaryrCY whenever he rCLconsidersrCY that rCLunlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblagesrCY are making it rCLimpracticable >> to enforce the laws of the United States.rCY It also allows him to use
troops or the Guard as he rCLconsiders necessaryrCY to rCLsuppressrCY rCLdomestic
violencerCY that rCLopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States.rCY
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to
Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to
Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentrCoand the president alonerCodetermines whether federal troops are >> necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion,
rCLthe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,rCY and rCLhis decision is conclusive upon all >> other persons.rCY Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump
very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago
under the Insurrection Act even if he didnrCOt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumprCOs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular.
Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If yourCOre like me, you donrCOt want to see tanks or >> servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But
as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen,
and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess
is that most Americans donrCOt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
On 10/14/2025 2:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItAs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >>> land will declare that weAre in the middle of another constitutional
crisis. ItAs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >>> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >>> owar-ravagedo Portland, Oregon, and ohellholeo Chicago, where anti-ICE
protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did >>> the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are
not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his oautocratico
National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenAt going
to let the lower courtAs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit
issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen >>> odo not need to return to their home states.o Basically, the Seventh
Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to
consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumpAs deployments
under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically
with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumpAs
deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and
whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all
of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to
wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationAs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a
Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
olike a war zone.o In the same report, another resident said itAs been
o115 days of hello and that oI only come out during the day,o because
that is when oall the black-covered antifa people arenAt here. They come >>> with the night. In the daytime itAs all these little old senior people.o >>> Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned
violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >>> wider poweruand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >>> president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
oconsiderso it onecessaryo whenever he oconsiderso that ounlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblageso are making it oimpracticable >>> to enforce the laws of the United States.o It also allows him to use
troops or the Guard as he oconsiders necessaryo to osuppresso odomestic
violenceo that oopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States.o
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentuand the president aloneudetermines whether federal troops are
necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion,
othe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,o and ohis decision is conclusive upon all
other persons.o Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump
very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago
under the Insurrection Act even if he didnAt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumpAs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular.
Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If youAre like me, you donAt want to see tanks or >>> servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But >>> as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen, >>> and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>>from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess
is that most Americans donAt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
At any rate your assertion here is probably not true.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:37:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 10/14/2025 2:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItrCOs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >>>> land will declare that werCOre in the middle of another constitutional >>>> crisis. ItrCOs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >>>> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >>>> rCLwar-ravagedrCY Portland, Oregon, and rCLhellholerCY Chicago, where anti-ICE
protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did >>>> the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are >>>> not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his rCLautocraticrCY >>>> National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenrCOt going >>>> to let the lower courtrCOs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit >>>> issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen >>>> rCLdo not need to return to their home states.rCY Basically, the Seventh >>>> Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to
consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumprCOs deployments >>>> under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically >>>> with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumprCOs >>>> deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and >>>> whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all >>>> of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to >>>> wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationrCOs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a
Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
rCLlike a war zone.rCY In the same report, another resident said itrCOs been
rCL115 days of hellrCY and that rCLI only come out during the day,rCY because
that is when rCLall the black-covered antifa people arenrCOt here. They come
with the night. In the daytime itrCOs all these little old senior people.rCY
Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned >>>> violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >>>> wider powerrCoand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >>>> president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
rCLconsidersrCY it rCLnecessaryrCY whenever he rCLconsidersrCY that rCLunlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblagesrCY are making it rCLimpracticable
to enforce the laws of the United States.rCY It also allows him to use >>>> troops or the Guard as he rCLconsiders necessaryrCY to rCLsuppressrCY rCLdomestic
violencerCY that rCLopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the >>>> United States.rCY
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentrCoand the president alonerCodetermines whether federal troops are
necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion, >>>> rCLthe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,rCY and rCLhis decision is conclusive upon all
other persons.rCY Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump >>>> very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago >>>> under the Insurrection Act even if he didnrCOt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumprCOs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular. >>>> Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If yourCOre like me, you donrCOt want to see tanks or
servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But >>>> as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen, >>>> and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>> >from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess >>>> is that most Americans donrCOt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
At any rate your assertion here is probably not true.
You mean you don't know for sure? A few days ago I did present
evidence of what the law actually says. My job is done.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:37:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 10/14/2025 2:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItrCOs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >>>> land will declare that werCOre in the middle of another constitutional >>>> crisis. ItrCOs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >>>> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at
least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >>>> rCLwar-ravagedrCY Portland, Oregon, and rCLhellholerCY Chicago, where anti-ICE
protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a
federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did >>>> the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are >>>> not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his rCLautocraticrCY >>>> National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed
both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenrCOt going >>>> to let the lower courtrCOs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit >>>> issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen >>>> rCLdo not need to return to their home states.rCY Basically, the Seventh >>>> Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to
consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumprCOs deployments >>>> under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically >>>> with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumprCOs >>>> deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and >>>> whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all >>>> of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to >>>> wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationrCOs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a
Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
rCLlike a war zone.rCY In the same report, another resident said itrCOs been
rCL115 days of hellrCY and that rCLI only come out during the day,rCY because
that is when rCLall the black-covered antifa people arenrCOt here. They come
with the night. In the daytime itrCOs all these little old senior people.rCY
Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned >>>> violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >>>> wider powerrCoand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >>>> president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
rCLconsidersrCY it rCLnecessaryrCY whenever he rCLconsidersrCY that rCLunlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblagesrCY are making it rCLimpracticable
to enforce the laws of the United States.rCY It also allows him to use >>>> troops or the Guard as he rCLconsiders necessaryrCY to rCLsuppressrCY rCLdomestic
violencerCY that rCLopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the >>>> United States.rCY
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S.
history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniarCOs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentrCoand the president alonerCodetermines whether federal troops are
necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion, >>>> rCLthe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,rCY and rCLhis decision is conclusive upon all
other persons.rCY Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump >>>> very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago >>>> under the Insurrection Act even if he didnrCOt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumprCOs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular. >>>> Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If yourCOre like me, you donrCOt want to see tanks or
servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But >>>> as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen, >>>> and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>> >from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess >>>> is that most Americans donrCOt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
At any rate your assertion here is probably not true.
You mean you don't know for sure? A few days ago I did present
evidence of what the law actually says. My job is done.
On 10/14/2025 1:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:37:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 10/14/2025 2:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItAs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >>>>> land will declare that weAre in the middle of another constitutional >>>>> crisis. ItAs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >>>>> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at >>>>> least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >>>>> owar-ravagedo Portland, Oregon, and ohellholeo Chicago, where anti-ICE >>>>> protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a >>>>> federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did >>>>> the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are >>>>> not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his oautocratico >>>>> National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed >>>>> both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenAt going >>>>> to let the lower courtAs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit >>>>> issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen >>>>> odo not need to return to their home states.o Basically, the Seventh >>>>> Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to >>>>> consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumpAs deployments >>>>> under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically >>>>> with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumpAs >>>>> deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and >>>>> whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all >>>>> of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to >>>>> wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationAs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a >>>>> Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
olike a war zone.o In the same report, another resident said itAs been >>>>> o115 days of hello and that oI only come out during the day,o because >>>>> that is when oall the black-covered antifa people arenAt here. They come >>>>> with the night. In the daytime itAs all these little old senior people.o >>>>> Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned >>>>> violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >>>>> wider poweruand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >>>>> president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
oconsiderso it onecessaryo whenever he oconsiderso that ounlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblageso are making it oimpracticable >>>>> to enforce the laws of the United States.o It also allows him to use >>>>> troops or the Guard as he oconsiders necessaryo to osuppresso odomestic >>>>> violenceo that oopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the >>>>> United States.o
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S. >>>>> history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S. >>>>> history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentuand the president aloneudetermines whether federal troops are >>>>> necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion, >>>>> othe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,o and ohis decision is conclusive upon all >>>>> other persons.o Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump >>>>> very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago >>>>> under the Insurrection Act even if he didnAt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumpAs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular. >>>>> Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If youAre like me, you donAt want to see tanks or >>>>> servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But >>>>> as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen, >>>>> and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>>> >from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess >>>>> is that most Americans donAt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
At any rate your assertion here is probably not true.
You mean you don't know for sure? A few days ago I did present
evidence of what the law actually says. My job is done.
My job is not to answer questions, but to question answers.
Why would Trump need to send in National Guard troops to Los Angeles or >Chicago when they already have the Gestapo LAPD and the Mob Mafia?
On 10/14/2025 4:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:37:31 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 10/14/2025 2:00 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 12:37:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-trump-outside-of-the-law-on-the
ItAs another week in America, which means that columnists throughout the >>>>> land will declare that weAre in the middle of another constitutional >>>>> crisis. ItAs still not true. What is true is that President Donald Trump >>>>> keeps pushing at the boundaries of his lawful power. And for now, at >>>>> least, the courts are doing their job.
The president is trying to send National Guard troops into what he calls >>>>> owar-ravagedo Portland, Oregon, and ohellholeo Chicago, where anti-ICE >>>>> protests, sometimes violent, have taken place. Earlier this month, a >>>>> federal district judge appointed by Trump blocked the Guard from
deploying in Portland. Last Thursday, another federal district judge did >>>>> the same thing in Chicago, again finding that the anti-ICE protests are >>>>> not violent enough to justify deploying the Guard.
That double whammy gave some Trump critics hope that his oautocratico >>>>> National Guard deployments would be halted by the judiciary. That
prospect may be short-lived. The administration immediately appealed >>>>> both cases and has a good chance of winning.
Out West, at an expedited hearing before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, two of the three judges indicated they probably werenAt going >>>>> to let the lower courtAs ruling stand. In Illinois, the Seventh Circuit >>>>> issued a curious one-page order refusing to allow deployment of the
Guard, but upholding federalization of the Guard, meaning that Guardsmen >>>>> odo not need to return to their home states.o Basically, the Seventh >>>>> Circuit is maintaining a kind of status quo while taking more time to >>>>> consider the merits.
But believe it or not, these cases hardly matter.
In both pending cases, the government is defending TrumpAs deployments >>>>> under U.S. Code Title 10, Section 12406, a statute dealing specifically >>>>> with the National Guard. Under Section 12406, the legality of TrumpAs >>>>> deployments arguably depends on how violent the protests have been and >>>>> whether regular law enforcement officers are able to contain them, all >>>>> of which is contested. Recently, the Portland protesters have taken to >>>>> wearing inflatable animal suits to mock the administrationAs dark
portrait of them. On the other hand, a BBC report last week quoted a >>>>> Portland resident as saying that the area around an ICE facility is
olike a war zone.o In the same report, another resident said itAs been >>>>> o115 days of hello and that oI only come out during the day,o because >>>>> that is when oall the black-covered antifa people arenAt here. They come >>>>> with the night. In the daytime itAs all these little old senior people.o >>>>> Meanwhile, a protest at an immigration facility outside Chicago turned >>>>> violent Saturday evening. These incidents may or may not be found
sufficient under Section 12406.
But a different set of statutory provisions dating back to 1807,
collectively known as the Insurrection Act, actually gives the president >>>>> wider poweruand its language is sweeping.
The Insurrection Act does not apply only to insurrections. It allows the >>>>> president to deploy troops or the Guard within the U.S. as he
oconsiderso it onecessaryo whenever he oconsiderso that ounlawful
combinations, obstructions, or assemblageso are making it oimpracticable >>>>> to enforce the laws of the United States.o It also allows him to use >>>>> troops or the Guard as he oconsiders necessaryo to osuppresso odomestic >>>>> violenceo that oopposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the >>>>> United States.o
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S. >>>>> history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act around 30 times in U.S. >>>>> history; the last time was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush sent troops to >>>>> Los Angeles to quell rioting. Bush had the consent of CaliforniaAs
governor, but the Insurrection Act allows the president to send in
troops without such consent.
While the wording of Section 12406 arguably invites judicial
second-guessing, the Insurrection Act pretty clearly says that the
presidentuand the president aloneudetermines whether federal troops are >>>>> necessary. As the Supreme Court put it in an often-quoted 1827 opinion, >>>>> othe authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs
exclusively to the president,o and ohis decision is conclusive upon all >>>>> other persons.o Given this extremely deferential judicial review, Trump >>>>> very probably has the power to deploy the Guard to Portland and Chicago >>>>> under the Insurrection Act even if he didnAt have that power under
Section 12406.
Politically, TrumpAs use of the National Guard appears to be unpopular. >>>>> Polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose deploying armed
troops to U.S. cities. If youAre like me, you donAt want to see tanks or >>>>> servicepeople with military-grade weapons marching down our streets. But >>>>> as a legal matter, the president has wide authority to make that happen, >>>>> and when it comes to limited deployments to stop masked antifa fascists >>>> >from attacking federal officers and taking over city streets, my guess >>>>> is that most Americans donAt object.
Totally oblivious to the requirement that feds can only intervene in
local law enforcement if local govt asks for help. Public opinion in
the matter is irrelevant to what the law says.
At any rate your assertion here is probably not true.
You mean you don't know for sure? A few days ago I did present
evidence of what the law actually says. My job is done.
The article also presented evidence of what the law actually is.
I'll trust that guy over you.
Neither of us are lawyers, Noah.