4 ms·

One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS. Is this the case here?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS Only "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1]. Otherwise, the National Guard is banned from domestic law enforcment at the command of the President [2]. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_States%29#Duties_and_administrative_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_State...
- andrewinardeer 1y ago
  The Brennan Centre site doesn't show the complete text. Dare I say Trump feels the below warrants the NG? I guess it could be argued that the civil unrest falls within the below reference? §253. Interference with State and Federal law The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Trump feels the below warrants the NG? Oh, totally. I’d even argue that interpretation is correct. How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me, but I guess this is a good stress test.
    - euroderf 1y ago
      > How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations. Jon Stewart has made that point that because of this, most of what Trump has been doing is perfectly legal.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations When people talk about Congress ceding its power to the executive, this is what they're describing. It's a modern phenomenon, a product of lazy legislating. We need a generation of lawmakers to rewrite decades of statute to be clear about what the federal government has the power to do, and then have the discipline to end it there. No extraordinary powers. The Constitution already extraordinarily empowers the President in military emergencies. Other emergencies can be dealt by an emergency session of the Congress. (There is no reason the President should have emergency tariff powers, for instance.)
        krapp 1y ago
        It was Congress who voted to change the definition of a calendar day so that the President's temporary emergency powers could last indefinitely. They aren't lazy, they're complicit.

> One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS Only "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1]. Otherwise, the National Guard is banned from domestic law enforcment at the command of the President [2]. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_States%29#Duties_and_administrative_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_State...

andrewinardeer 1y ago
The Brennan Centre site doesn't show the complete text. Dare I say Trump feels the below warrants the NG? I guess it could be argued that the civil unrest falls within the below reference? §253. Interference with State and Federal law The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Trump feels the below warrants the NG? Oh, totally. I’d even argue that interpretation is correct. How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me, but I guess this is a good stress test.
  - euroderf 1y ago
    > How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations. Jon Stewart has made that point that because of this, most of what Trump has been doing is perfectly legal.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations When people talk about Congress ceding its power to the executive, this is what they're describing. It's a modern phenomenon, a product of lazy legislating. We need a generation of lawmakers to rewrite decades of statute to be clear about what the federal government has the power to do, and then have the discipline to end it there. No extraordinary powers. The Constitution already extraordinarily empowers the President in military emergencies. Other emergencies can be dealt by an emergency session of the Congress. (There is no reason the President should have emergency tariff powers, for instance.)
      - krapp 1y ago
        It was Congress who voted to change the definition of a calendar day so that the President's temporary emergency powers could last indefinitely. They aren't lazy, they're complicit.