3 ms·

> I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You’re talking about putativ

> I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection. You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it. > Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders. Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%20order.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”). The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.

anigbrowl 1y ago
Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. Ah, 'OK so we shouldn't have done that but now that we have you shouldn't criticize how we go about it.'
- rayiner 1y ago
  > Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) “Emanations from penumbras” are “weasel words.” I’m just talking about what the document means. If there’s contrary Supreme Court precedent, the only way to get it overturned is to take action based on an aggressive legal position and wait to get sued. That’s just how the executive (and impact litigation generally) works. > to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal The portion I quoted was not describing some temporary situation pending the appeal. It first sentence says: “ Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations.” The following portions are describing what the court views as inside the scope of the statute. And you can criticize the conduct as much as you want, but it’s wrong to say the National Guard was “illegally deployed.” The deployment was legal and the purpose of deploying to protect federal property was legal, according to Judge Breyer. The ruling was that the troops were engaged in conduct outside the scope of the legal deployment. Even if that ruling holds up, which is unlikely, that doesn’t support the assertion that the deployment itself was illegal.
UncleMeat 1y ago
And I fully expect this "well you are using a made up version of the constitution" to appear in the comment threads for the next evil. And the next. And the next. All the way down to the one that puts a bullet in my skull.
- rayiner 1y ago
  That makes it sound like anything I'm saying is new, which it is not. I'm just expressing how people understood the constitution to operate for the first 130 years of its history. For example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opinion-1931571 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opin... ("Montesquieu's view that the maintenance of independence as between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches was a security for the people had their full approval. Accordingly, the Constitution was so framed as to vest in the Congress all legislative powers therein granted, to vest in the President the executive power, and to vest in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish the judicial power. *** The debates in the Constitutional Convention indicated an intention to create a strong Executive, and, after a controversial discussion, the executive power of the Government was vested in one person and many of his important functions were specified so as to avoid the humiliating weakness of the Congress during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation. *** The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws. But the President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates. This view has since been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. As he is charged specifically to take care that they be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication, even in the absence of express words, was that, as part of his executive power, he should select those who were to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws."). The mid-20th century precedent was an erroneous deviation, driven in large part not by legal analysis, but FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court unless it ruled the way he wanted.

anigbrowl 1y ago

Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection. Ah, 'OK so we shouldn't have done that but now that we have you shouldn't criticize how we go about it.'

rayiner 1y ago
> Lot of weasel words in there, from 'as it was understood by the people who wrote it' (so your originalist doctrine takes precedence over SCOTUS decisions?) “Emanations from penumbras” are “weasel words.” I’m just talking about what the document means. If there’s contrary Supreme Court precedent, the only way to get it overturned is to take action based on an aggressive legal position and wait to get sued. That’s just how the executive (and impact litigation generally) works. > to quoting Breyer's allowing deployed troops to stay put as if that wasn't to provide time for the administration to appeal The portion I quoted was not describing some temporary situation pending the appeal. It first sentence says: “ Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations.” The following portions are describing what the court views as inside the scope of the statute. And you can criticize the conduct as much as you want, but it’s wrong to say the National Guard was “illegally deployed.” The deployment was legal and the purpose of deploying to protect federal property was legal, according to Judge Breyer. The ruling was that the troops were engaged in conduct outside the scope of the legal deployment. Even if that ruling holds up, which is unlikely, that doesn’t support the assertion that the deployment itself was illegal.

UncleMeat 1y ago

And I fully expect this "well you are using a made up version of the constitution" to appear in the comment threads for the next evil. And the next. And the next. All the way down to the one that puts a bullet in my skull.

rayiner 1y ago
That makes it sound like anything I'm saying is new, which it is not. I'm just expressing how people understood the constitution to operate for the first 130 years of its history. For example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opinion-1931571 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opin... ("Montesquieu's view that the maintenance of independence as between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches was a security for the people had their full approval. Accordingly, the Constitution was so framed as to vest in the Congress all legislative powers therein granted, to vest in the President the executive power, and to vest in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish the judicial power. *** The debates in the Constitutional Convention indicated an intention to create a strong Executive, and, after a controversial discussion, the executive power of the Government was vested in one person and many of his important functions were specified so as to avoid the humiliating weakness of the Congress during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation. *** The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws. But the President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates. This view has since been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. As he is charged specifically to take care that they be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication, even in the absence of express words, was that, as part of his executive power, he should select those who were to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws."). The mid-20th century precedent was an erroneous deviation, driven in large part not by legal analysis, but FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court unless it ruled the way he wanted.