4 ms·

The way the US legal system works is if the US Attorney General tells the US President an act is legal, regardless of if it is, until the Supreme Court or Congr

by billme 6y ago

The way the US legal system works is if the US Attorney General tells the US President an act is legal, regardless of if it is, until the Supreme Court or Congress act, the President is free to do as the US Attorney General said. Under the US Constitution, The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, to not follow a direct order would be a likely be a crime for anyone within the military. Trumps statements counted as a proclamation, if the US Attorney General said they did.

alextheparrot 6y ago
I would be a bit more tempered regarding the not following an order part. There’s long established cases in US law that doesn’t mean the person obeying the order is free, if the order was not lawful. United States vs Keenan being one example — soldiers need to obey lawful orders, but obeying unlawful orders puts them at risk of criminal prosecution.
- billme 6y ago
  Hence “likely” - it’s impossible to tell what might happen.
- montagg 6y ago
  The point is that an order to siege an American city would not be unlawful, under the Insurrection Act, because there are parts of the Act that give a lot of discretion to the President about when to use force. That siege order could be legal. At that point, disobeying has to be a moral act, and the law isn’t a concern anymore. I say this living in an apartment about three blocks from a tank in Los Angeles.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  By the way, the U.S. armed forces includes in its ranks a small army of lawyers. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily identify unlawful orders as such and refuse to comply. But it's something.
zaphirplane 6y ago
So the soviets, Romania, East Germany* couldn’t be ruthless enough to fire on protesters but the US marines will? Hard to believe * dictatorships
- agapon 6y ago
  Your source? There were many instances when they did. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)

by billme 6y ago

alextheparrot 6y ago

I would be a bit more tempered regarding the not following an order part. There’s long established cases in US law that doesn’t mean the person obeying the order is free, if the order was not lawful. United States vs Keenan being one example — soldiers need to obey lawful orders, but obeying unlawful orders puts them at risk of criminal prosecution.

billme 6y ago
Hence “likely” - it’s impossible to tell what might happen.
montagg 6y ago
The point is that an order to siege an American city would not be unlawful, under the Insurrection Act, because there are parts of the Act that give a lot of discretion to the President about when to use force. That siege order could be legal. At that point, disobeying has to be a moral act, and the law isn’t a concern anymore. I say this living in an apartment about three blocks from a tank in Los Angeles.
cryptonector 6y ago
By the way, the U.S. armed forces includes in its ranks a small army of lawyers. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily identify unlawful orders as such and refuse to comply. But it's something.

zaphirplane 6y ago

So the soviets, Romania, East Germany* couldn’t be ruthless enough to fire on protesters but the US marines will? Hard to believe * dictatorships

agapon 6y ago
Your source? There were many instances when they did. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events_(Lithuania)