The governor of a Democratic-controlled state should challenge President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops from another Republican-controlled state by calling up his own Guard to confront the invading units, using the longstanding provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act to evict them. Otherwise we could see states invading other states.
To Susan, do your research before you publicly expose your ignorance of the law.
The primary authority for a U.S. president to call up troops domestically is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
Federal law enforcement: The president can deploy troops to enforce U.S. laws or suppress a rebellion if "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages" make it "impracticable to enforce" the law through ordinary judicial proceedings.
Protecting civil rights: The president can act to suppress domestic violence that deprives people of a constitutional right when state authorities are unwilling or unable to act.
Your take is, as usual, laughable. There's a reason Trump keeps losing in court, even when it's a judge he appointed. As one judge (appointed by Trump) said, Trump's attempts to excuse his misuse of the troops is "simply untethered to the facts", a situation you are intimate with and constantly demonstrate. There's a simple reason Trump keeps losing in court with this; the law doesn't support it.
Lower court rulings are only temporary political roadblocks. What counts is SCOTUS and the written law, not the lower court's opinion or "interpretation" of the law.
So, before you celebrate Mike, I'd wait and see. The process has a way of making fools of those who care more about how they think it should be, versus the way it is.
Trump is not the first President to use Federal troops or the National Guard to quell lawlessness. And I'm pretty sure he won't be the last either. All Presidents have that Constitutional authority. They also have huge constitutionally protected executive authority.
So, as usual, you are letting your emotions and psychosis form your opinions.
Have fun at your "no kings" demonstration. BTW, remember when the Democrats tried to install Kamala as a Queen? At least Trump won the Election legitimately, unless you are an Election denier.
All court rulings are supposed to be interpretations of the law MEPD, that's their job. However, SCOTUS has now become a political ally of our moron president, so it's rulings no longer fulfill it's responsibilities. If the current court does agree that Trump has the power to use troops under a fictitious premise, it won't mean there's new settled law, it will simply mean they have continued to be a political pawn. Their rulings during this time of kowtowing to Trump will all be overturned eventually when the court resumes living up to its responsibilities.
You don't seem to understand the issue isn't whether a president can use troops when it's absolutely necessary, it's that a president can't lie about it being absolutely necessary, make up a false pretext, and exercise unlimited power in defiance of the Constitution.
There is no emotion in my judgement, it's simply pointing out the fact that Trump is lying. You brainlessly claim he's doing it to "quell lawlessness" where none exists.
As I've said to you many times, I don't deny Trump won in 2024 or in 2016. Do you admit Trump lost in 2020?
Tried to install Harris as a queen? What moronic nonsense is that? The party candidate dropped out, they needed a new candidate, and there wasn't time for primaries. Who in your pea brain do you think was more logical than the Vice President to be their next candidate for president? Meanwhile you support the president that's trying to crown himself King, demonstrating over and over again how tragically you're in the grips of TDS.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(4) comments
To the CDS, look up the meaning of subvert.
To Susan, do your research before you publicly expose your ignorance of the law.
The primary authority for a U.S. president to call up troops domestically is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which creates an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.
Federal law enforcement: The president can deploy troops to enforce U.S. laws or suppress a rebellion if "unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages" make it "impracticable to enforce" the law through ordinary judicial proceedings.
Protecting civil rights: The president can act to suppress domestic violence that deprives people of a constitutional right when state authorities are unwilling or unable to act.
Your take is, as usual, laughable. There's a reason Trump keeps losing in court, even when it's a judge he appointed. As one judge (appointed by Trump) said, Trump's attempts to excuse his misuse of the troops is "simply untethered to the facts", a situation you are intimate with and constantly demonstrate. There's a simple reason Trump keeps losing in court with this; the law doesn't support it.
Lower court rulings are only temporary political roadblocks. What counts is SCOTUS and the written law, not the lower court's opinion or "interpretation" of the law.
So, before you celebrate Mike, I'd wait and see. The process has a way of making fools of those who care more about how they think it should be, versus the way it is.
Trump is not the first President to use Federal troops or the National Guard to quell lawlessness. And I'm pretty sure he won't be the last either. All Presidents have that Constitutional authority. They also have huge constitutionally protected executive authority.
So, as usual, you are letting your emotions and psychosis form your opinions.
Have fun at your "no kings" demonstration. BTW, remember when the Democrats tried to install Kamala as a Queen? At least Trump won the Election legitimately, unless you are an Election denier.
All court rulings are supposed to be interpretations of the law MEPD, that's their job. However, SCOTUS has now become a political ally of our moron president, so it's rulings no longer fulfill it's responsibilities. If the current court does agree that Trump has the power to use troops under a fictitious premise, it won't mean there's new settled law, it will simply mean they have continued to be a political pawn. Their rulings during this time of kowtowing to Trump will all be overturned eventually when the court resumes living up to its responsibilities.
You don't seem to understand the issue isn't whether a president can use troops when it's absolutely necessary, it's that a president can't lie about it being absolutely necessary, make up a false pretext, and exercise unlimited power in defiance of the Constitution.
There is no emotion in my judgement, it's simply pointing out the fact that Trump is lying. You brainlessly claim he's doing it to "quell lawlessness" where none exists.
As I've said to you many times, I don't deny Trump won in 2024 or in 2016. Do you admit Trump lost in 2020?
Tried to install Harris as a queen? What moronic nonsense is that? The party candidate dropped out, they needed a new candidate, and there wasn't time for primaries. Who in your pea brain do you think was more logical than the Vice President to be their next candidate for president? Meanwhile you support the president that's trying to crown himself King, demonstrating over and over again how tragically you're in the grips of TDS.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.