26 ms·

Because the CNN article seems to have accidentally omitted it, allow me to paste the full text of 18 U.S. Code § 1385, the Posse Comitatus Act: > Whoever, exce

Because the CNN article seems to have accidentally omitted it, allow me to paste the full text of 18 U.S. Code § 1385, the Posse Comitatus Act: > Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

TiredOfLife 1y ago
[flagged]
- spencerflem 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - shard972 1y ago
    [dead]
  - Majestic121 1y ago
    Don't be over-dramatic, the comment is downvoted to death and every response is against it.
    - spencerflem 1y ago
      You're probably right. (Though fwiw when I left the comment I was the only response and it was not downvoted) But it just makes me so sad. I think I ought to delete my account. Every time anything US politics-y comes up, especially the supreme court, the comments are filled with such horrible takes. It makes me feel like, if this is the sort of world the people here want and its so different from what I hope for, what common ground do we have. Why should I care about, idk retrocomputers or WASM OSes etc. if its just to be part of a group that's like this. Idk, same sort of angst about doing anything on a computer these days. I get embarrassed telling people what I do. People in general seem to hate programmers and the more I go on the more I think they're right. Idk blehjj, just in a bad mood sorry for ranting. Thanks for the comment, honestly
      - jonplackett 1y ago
        Stick around - democracy is making sure there are more of you than there are of them. There will always be assholes. Don’t let them get you down.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > it just makes me so sad Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate. I've learned a lot from reading the comments around these stories. If it starts incensing you, hide the story. (They tend to get flagged off the front page fairly regularly. Something I used to condone until Silicon Valley started showing its authoritarian tendencies.)
        elktown 1y ago
        > Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate At some point people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive. It feels more like a cop-out to never take a stand for anything. I respect the exasperated outburst of the GP, at least it shows that there is some kind of backbone that will hurt when reading all this bullshit gaslighting. There's not even a hint in the last 20 years - on both this site and the internet in general - that "calm debate" has done anything to stop fascists from gaslighting every step of the way. Despite their claims to the contrary, they aren't even looking for a debate. Instead they just get the platform they so actively always wanted and are defended by the tone police to spread their bs, and the more influence they get the looser some people's already frail backbone get. They won't stop. Don't expect it. Don't wait for it.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive We may be talking past each other. I'm not arguing for a general vibe. Just a productive approach to online discussion about politics. It's very unlikely you're going to change someone's mind about partisan politics on this forum. What's more likely is you're going to get some combination of enraged and developed in your thinking about what's going on. So I'm saying to focus, online, on that latter part. Learning. Discussing. All of it calmly, so you can strategise. That way, when you manifest that anger in the real world, you can do so strategically. Effectively.
  - jonplackett 1y ago
    It’s literally one idiot who is probably a 14 yo kid anyway. Just downvote them and move on.
    - askl 1y ago
      Sadly a much older kid probably. The account is already 13 years old.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Foreign nationals waving flag of their nation, attacking citizens and being in country without permission. Smells like invasion But is not. Invasions are military offensives involving combatants of a geopolitical entity [1]. If this is an invasion, every rally in which a Confederate flag is waived is a rebellion. Also, § 4 concludes with "and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The Constitution is very clear about the scope of executive military power within the United States because they weren't illiterate and knew how Rome's republics fell [2]. Hell, even when Hamilton argued for federal control of militias, he underscored that its risk "to the liberties of the people" was mitigated by the fact that the states "have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS," emphasis his [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion [2] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp [3] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
  - spaceman_2020 1y ago
    If waving a foreign flag is an invasion, boy America is going to have a lot of invasions when it co-hosts the football world cup next year
    - TiredOfLife 1y ago
      If they are in country illegally and are throwing rocks and attacking people then yes
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > If they are in country illegally and are throwing rocks and attacking people then yes For sake of argument, let's grant this. "A first-time illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $250 and a maximum jail sentence of six months" [1]. Assaulting a federal police officer carries a maximum jail sentence of 5 [2] to ten years [3]. The first category, petty misdemeanors, includes things like DUIs, cyberbullying and vandalism [4]. It also, conveniently, doesn't require a jury trial [5]. Based on your standard, if a tourist is caught driving under the influence, or is suspected of cyberbullying or vandalism, it triggers the threshold upon which, if any violence of any kind is suspected in their vicinity, troops can be deployed against American citizens. (And then they get no jury trial.) Because I will love to see that precedent explored the next time the far right whips up an election-denial conspiracy. [1] https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1325-illegal-entry-and-its-legal-consequences/ https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1325-illegal-entry-and-its... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111 [3] https://medvinlaw.com/federal-assault-on-law-enforcement-penalties-for-18-usc-111-charges/ https://medvinlaw.com/federal-assault-on-law-enforcement-pen... [4] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/classes-of-misdemeanors.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/classes-of-mi... [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/petty-offense-doctrine-and-maximum-sentences-over-six-months#:~:text=No%20offense,is%20authorized. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/p...
- rozab 1y ago
  If that's the case then let's trigger article 5 and declare war on Mexico! Oh what, you don't actually believe this and just want to hold it in your head as a fiction to excuse the cognitive dissonance of authoritarianism?
- locuscoeruleus 1y ago
  > Smells like invasion. No, it doesn't. What country is using what army to invade USA?
- arunabha 1y ago
  Do you mean the protesting the work of Federal and ICE agents? Since when did that become 'attacking citizens'? If that's the bar, then I'm wondering how you'd classify the J6 mob? Remember, the president explicitly pardoned each and every J6 protester who was duly convicted in a court of law by a jury so at best there are some extreme double standards being applied.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- yokoprime 1y ago
  > Foreign nationals waving flag of their nation, attacking citizens and being in country without permission. Smells like invasion. This is such a tabloid and uneducated take. These are riots or unrest, not an invasion. An invasion is a military offensive by a nation-state or global entity. If this was in fact an invasion, the US should invoke NATO article 5.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ta1243 1y ago
Presidents are immune from all charges and can pardon themselves in any case
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Presidents are immune from all charges and can pardon themselves None of this is legally established.
  - arunabha 1y ago
    Didn't the supreme court determine that presidents have 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'? Of course, they gave future justices some wriggle room with the somewhat vague wording, but the current court seems very sympathetic to the unitary executive theory.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Didn't the supreme court determine that presidents have 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'? Broad immunity for official acts, and absolute immunity for core Constitutional powers. Nothing about "all charges" or self or preëmptive pardons. > the current court seems very sympathetic to the unitary executive theory UET concerns itself with how much power the President has to exercise executive power [1]. Not the boundaries of executive power per se. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Termi...
      - Y-bar 1y ago
        > for official acts True. But the kicker is that the president has an effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act.
        ethbr1 1y ago
        > But the kicker is that the president has an effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act. I think this is where the interpretation of the ruling is wrong: common reading is that it gave the president more power. Textually, whether it does or doesn't entirely turns on the definition of an "official act" which the Supreme Court very notably left for lower courts to determine on a case by case basis. >> The immunity [for official acts] the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC). Including in Trump v United States, which was still ongoing at the time Trump won reelection. >> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct [of contacting state and other election officials] qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. >> Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. [...] Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf p5+, p24 Since it was dismissed without prejudice, it's entirely possible a subsequent Department of Justice reopens it and proceeds with the District Court fact finding the Supreme Court directed.
davidguetta 1y ago
> except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress They are arguing there's an insurrenction in California.
- spiderfarmer 1y ago
  There isn't. So don't repeat this 'argument' like it has any substance whatsoever.
  - wepple 1y ago
    As someone who knows absolutely nothing about what’s happening in LA, it is actually useful to hear what the govt is claiming as a justification, then the reader can judge how valid it is.
    - spiderfarmer 1y ago
      Not everyone will critically assess the validity of the government's claims. When the press repeats such statements without scrutiny or fact-checking, it does real harm. Many people will uncritically echo what the government says, simply because they already support them. A statement like "The government is scrambling to justify an unnecessary escalation, driven solely by a president who has praised violent authoritarian leaders, by labeling it an 'insurrection.' When asked for evidence, officials mocked reporters and threatened to exclude them from future briefings." offers verifiable context and reflects the serious threat posed by a leader who appears intent on pushing the country toward chaos.
      - wepple 1y ago
        Sure, but this is HN. The level of critical thinking is far higher IMO. I personally believe that especially on a forum such as this, it’s fine to expose the administrations claims to daylight and let them be examined and criticized and even mocked.
  - rythmshifter 1y ago
xdennis 1y ago
The President has authority to do so under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did the same thing when he forced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. I'm pretty sure you were aware of this but cite the Posse Comitatus Act to make it sound like what Trump is doing is illegal. You can absolutely argue that what he's doing is unnecessary, disproportional, evil, provocative, etc, but it's not illegal.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > The President has authority to do so under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did the same thing when he forced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 Super unclear. Governor Wallace of Alabama was overtly rejecting a court order to desegregate. There was a law passed by the Congress. A U.S. court making an order. And the U.S. President enforcing it, including with the military. Wallace was defying the U.S., not just President Eisenhower. The facts and circumstances here are different. The immigration laws being enforced are clear. But the Marines aren't being deployed against illegal immigrants, they're being deployed against mostly-American protesters. There have been zero court actions specific to these protests. This is being entirely done by the President. Moreover, neither Newsom nor Bass are interfering with ICE. So it's a bit ridiculous to compare a former Confederate state's governor personally blocking a U.S. court decision to mostly-peaceful protesters (and where not, being processed by local and state law enforcement) exercising their Constutional rights to speech and assembly while ICE continues to do what it does relatively unimpeded.
- shakna 1y ago
  The President has not invoked the Insurrection Act, as required, because they are using a different justification for their actions. Without invoking it, it just is not relevant here.
- dietr1ch 1y ago
  > but it's not illegal This is where I find the extremely lawful mindset idiotic. Laws try to encode good behaviour, but can't define it.
Bender 1y ago
Active duty can guard federal buildings and federal agents. Not sure that is how they will use them. When I was active duty I assisted in multiple weather related catastrophic events and I am glad they did not argue against our use. We helped many citizens in a time the national guard would not have been sufficient.
- FrustratedMonky 1y ago
  That is a really hopeful read of the situation. But, all we have is hope.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  For a better article on the legal distinctions: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-us-law-allow-trump-send-troops-quell-protests-2025-06-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-us-law-allow-trump-sen... To fill in the negative side of authorities, Trump cannot use the mobilized Marines to enforce US laws (aka act in a law enforcement capacity). As you said, they are restricted to protecting federal buildings and federal agents.
- UncleEntity 1y ago
  I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between disaster relief and "suppressing a rebellion". After the first Gulf War they sent us to Greensboro, NC to march in some parade and no one argued against that either because we weren't being used in any law enforcement capacity. Honestly, if we were there for 'riot control' I doubt they would have given us such a warm welcome.
  - Bender 1y ago
    Speaking of rebellion since you guys are experts on this I want to know who is bringing in all the violent rioters from other parts of the US and handing them the same size, shape Mexican flag that are all folded the same way same creases. Is it the same US taxpayer funded NGO's that were smuggling them into the US? And why the Mexican flag? Isn't that the very place they are trying to stay out of and wouldn't a Mexican flag imply an invasion from Mexico? I would think they would want to wave around a US flag since they want to stay here. Several things are just off about all of this. It feel like I am watching a movie produced by really lazy script writers. Is it just me? I am fine with them burning the US flag since they are following the flag protocol of the United States of America, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
lenkite 1y ago
Marines have been sent several times to combat mass rioting and violence in the United States under several Presidents. Was done in LA earlier as well.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

TiredOfLife 1y ago

[flagged]

spencerflem 1y ago
[flagged]
- shard972 1y ago
  [dead]
- Majestic121 1y ago
  Don't be over-dramatic, the comment is downvoted to death and every response is against it.
  - spencerflem 1y ago
    You're probably right. (Though fwiw when I left the comment I was the only response and it was not downvoted) But it just makes me so sad. I think I ought to delete my account. Every time anything US politics-y comes up, especially the supreme court, the comments are filled with such horrible takes. It makes me feel like, if this is the sort of world the people here want and its so different from what I hope for, what common ground do we have. Why should I care about, idk retrocomputers or WASM OSes etc. if its just to be part of a group that's like this. Idk, same sort of angst about doing anything on a computer these days. I get embarrassed telling people what I do. People in general seem to hate programmers and the more I go on the more I think they're right. Idk blehjj, just in a bad mood sorry for ranting. Thanks for the comment, honestly
    - jonplackett 1y ago
      Stick around - democracy is making sure there are more of you than there are of them. There will always be assholes. Don’t let them get you down.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > it just makes me so sad Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate. I've learned a lot from reading the comments around these stories. If it starts incensing you, hide the story. (They tend to get flagged off the front page fairly regularly. Something I used to condone until Silicon Valley started showing its authoritarian tendencies.)
      - elktown 1y ago
        > Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate At some point people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive. It feels more like a cop-out to never take a stand for anything. I respect the exasperated outburst of the GP, at least it shows that there is some kind of backbone that will hurt when reading all this bullshit gaslighting. There's not even a hint in the last 20 years - on both this site and the internet in general - that "calm debate" has done anything to stop fascists from gaslighting every step of the way. Despite their claims to the contrary, they aren't even looking for a debate. Instead they just get the platform they so actively always wanted and are defended by the tone police to spread their bs, and the more influence they get the looser some people's already frail backbone get. They won't stop. Don't expect it. Don't wait for it.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive We may be talking past each other. I'm not arguing for a general vibe. Just a productive approach to online discussion about politics. It's very unlikely you're going to change someone's mind about partisan politics on this forum. What's more likely is you're going to get some combination of enraged and developed in your thinking about what's going on. So I'm saying to focus, online, on that latter part. Learning. Discussing. All of it calmly, so you can strategise. That way, when you manifest that anger in the real world, you can do so strategically. Effectively.
- jonplackett 1y ago
  It’s literally one idiot who is probably a 14 yo kid anyway. Just downvote them and move on.
  - askl 1y ago
    Sadly a much older kid probably. The account is already 13 years old.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Foreign nationals waving flag of their nation, attacking citizens and being in country without permission. Smells like invasion But is not. Invasions are military offensives involving combatants of a geopolitical entity [1]. If this is an invasion, every rally in which a Confederate flag is waived is a rebellion. Also, § 4 concludes with "and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The Constitution is very clear about the scope of executive military power within the United States because they weren't illiterate and knew how Rome's republics fell [2]. Hell, even when Hamilton argued for federal control of militias, he underscored that its risk "to the liberties of the people" was mitigated by the fact that the states "have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS," emphasis his [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion [2] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp [3] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
- spaceman_2020 1y ago
  If waving a foreign flag is an invasion, boy America is going to have a lot of invasions when it co-hosts the football world cup next year
  - TiredOfLife 1y ago
    If they are in country illegally and are throwing rocks and attacking people then yes
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > If they are in country illegally and are throwing rocks and attacking people then yes For sake of argument, let's grant this. "A first-time illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $250 and a maximum jail sentence of six months" [1]. Assaulting a federal police officer carries a maximum jail sentence of 5 [2] to ten years [3]. The first category, petty misdemeanors, includes things like DUIs, cyberbullying and vandalism [4]. It also, conveniently, doesn't require a jury trial [5]. Based on your standard, if a tourist is caught driving under the influence, or is suspected of cyberbullying or vandalism, it triggers the threshold upon which, if any violence of any kind is suspected in their vicinity, troops can be deployed against American citizens. (And then they get no jury trial.) Because I will love to see that precedent explored the next time the far right whips up an election-denial conspiracy. [1] https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1325-illegal-entry-and-its-legal-consequences/ https://legalclarity.org/18-u-s-c-1325-illegal-entry-and-its... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111 [3] https://medvinlaw.com/federal-assault-on-law-enforcement-penalties-for-18-usc-111-charges/ https://medvinlaw.com/federal-assault-on-law-enforcement-pen... [4] https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/classes-of-misdemeanors.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/classes-of-mi... [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/petty-offense-doctrine-and-maximum-sentences-over-six-months#:~:text=No%20offense,is%20authorized. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-6/p...
rozab 1y ago
If that's the case then let's trigger article 5 and declare war on Mexico! Oh what, you don't actually believe this and just want to hold it in your head as a fiction to excuse the cognitive dissonance of authoritarianism?
locuscoeruleus 1y ago
> Smells like invasion. No, it doesn't. What country is using what army to invade USA?
arunabha 1y ago
Do you mean the protesting the work of Federal and ICE agents? Since when did that become 'attacking citizens'? If that's the bar, then I'm wondering how you'd classify the J6 mob? Remember, the president explicitly pardoned each and every J6 protester who was duly convicted in a court of law by a jury so at best there are some extreme double standards being applied.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
yokoprime 1y ago
> Foreign nationals waving flag of their nation, attacking citizens and being in country without permission. Smells like invasion. This is such a tabloid and uneducated take. These are riots or unrest, not an invasion. An invasion is a military offensive by a nation-state or global entity. If this was in fact an invasion, the US should invoke NATO article 5.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ta1243 1y ago

Presidents are immune from all charges and can pardon themselves in any case

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Presidents are immune from all charges and can pardon themselves None of this is legally established.
- arunabha 1y ago
  Didn't the supreme court determine that presidents have 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'? Of course, they gave future justices some wriggle room with the somewhat vague wording, but the current court seems very sympathetic to the unitary executive theory.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Didn't the supreme court determine that presidents have 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'? Broad immunity for official acts, and absolute immunity for core Constitutional powers. Nothing about "all charges" or self or preëmptive pardons. > the current court seems very sympathetic to the unitary executive theory UET concerns itself with how much power the President has to exercise executive power [1]. Not the boundaries of executive power per se. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory#Termi...
    - Y-bar 1y ago
      > for official acts True. But the kicker is that the president has an effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        > But the kicker is that the president has an effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act. I think this is where the interpretation of the ruling is wrong: common reading is that it gave the president more power. Textually, whether it does or doesn't entirely turns on the definition of an "official act" which the Supreme Court very notably left for lower courts to determine on a case by case basis. >> The immunity [for official acts] the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC). Including in Trump v United States, which was still ongoing at the time Trump won reelection. >> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct [of contacting state and other election officials] qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. >> Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. [...] Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf p5+, p24 Since it was dismissed without prejudice, it's entirely possible a subsequent Department of Justice reopens it and proceeds with the District Court fact finding the Supreme Court directed.

davidguetta 1y ago

> except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress They are arguing there's an insurrenction in California.

spiderfarmer 1y ago
There isn't. So don't repeat this 'argument' like it has any substance whatsoever.
- wepple 1y ago
  As someone who knows absolutely nothing about what’s happening in LA, it is actually useful to hear what the govt is claiming as a justification, then the reader can judge how valid it is.
  - spiderfarmer 1y ago
    Not everyone will critically assess the validity of the government's claims. When the press repeats such statements without scrutiny or fact-checking, it does real harm. Many people will uncritically echo what the government says, simply because they already support them. A statement like "The government is scrambling to justify an unnecessary escalation, driven solely by a president who has praised violent authoritarian leaders, by labeling it an 'insurrection.' When asked for evidence, officials mocked reporters and threatened to exclude them from future briefings." offers verifiable context and reflects the serious threat posed by a leader who appears intent on pushing the country toward chaos.
    - wepple 1y ago
      Sure, but this is HN. The level of critical thinking is far higher IMO. I personally believe that especially on a forum such as this, it’s fine to expose the administrations claims to daylight and let them be examined and criticized and even mocked.
- rythmshifter 1y ago

xdennis 1y ago

The President has authority to do so under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did the same thing when he forced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. I'm pretty sure you were aware of this but cite the Posse Comitatus Act to make it sound like what Trump is doing is illegal. You can absolutely argue that what he's doing is unnecessary, disproportional, evil, provocative, etc, but it's not illegal.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> The President has authority to do so under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did the same thing when he forced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 Super unclear. Governor Wallace of Alabama was overtly rejecting a court order to desegregate. There was a law passed by the Congress. A U.S. court making an order. And the U.S. President enforcing it, including with the military. Wallace was defying the U.S., not just President Eisenhower. The facts and circumstances here are different. The immigration laws being enforced are clear. But the Marines aren't being deployed against illegal immigrants, they're being deployed against mostly-American protesters. There have been zero court actions specific to these protests. This is being entirely done by the President. Moreover, neither Newsom nor Bass are interfering with ICE. So it's a bit ridiculous to compare a former Confederate state's governor personally blocking a U.S. court decision to mostly-peaceful protesters (and where not, being processed by local and state law enforcement) exercising their Constutional rights to speech and assembly while ICE continues to do what it does relatively unimpeded.
shakna 1y ago
The President has not invoked the Insurrection Act, as required, because they are using a different justification for their actions. Without invoking it, it just is not relevant here.
dietr1ch 1y ago
> but it's not illegal This is where I find the extremely lawful mindset idiotic. Laws try to encode good behaviour, but can't define it.

Bender 1y ago

Active duty can guard federal buildings and federal agents. Not sure that is how they will use them. When I was active duty I assisted in multiple weather related catastrophic events and I am glad they did not argue against our use. We helped many citizens in a time the national guard would not have been sufficient.

FrustratedMonky 1y ago
That is a really hopeful read of the situation. But, all we have is hope.
ethbr1 1y ago
For a better article on the legal distinctions: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-us-law-allow-trump-send-troops-quell-protests-2025-06-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/does-us-law-allow-trump-sen... To fill in the negative side of authorities, Trump cannot use the mobilized Marines to enforce US laws (aka act in a law enforcement capacity). As you said, they are restricted to protecting federal buildings and federal agents.
UncleEntity 1y ago
I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between disaster relief and "suppressing a rebellion". After the first Gulf War they sent us to Greensboro, NC to march in some parade and no one argued against that either because we weren't being used in any law enforcement capacity. Honestly, if we were there for 'riot control' I doubt they would have given us such a warm welcome.
- Bender 1y ago
  Speaking of rebellion since you guys are experts on this I want to know who is bringing in all the violent rioters from other parts of the US and handing them the same size, shape Mexican flag that are all folded the same way same creases. Is it the same US taxpayer funded NGO's that were smuggling them into the US? And why the Mexican flag? Isn't that the very place they are trying to stay out of and wouldn't a Mexican flag imply an invasion from Mexico? I would think they would want to wave around a US flag since they want to stay here. Several things are just off about all of this. It feel like I am watching a movie produced by really lazy script writers. Is it just me? I am fine with them burning the US flag since they are following the flag protocol of the United States of America, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

lenkite 1y ago

Marines have been sent several times to combat mass rioting and violence in the United States under several Presidents. Was done in LA earlier as well.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]