If an article title ends in a question, the answer is always “No.”
Absolutely fucking not.
When the president does it, that means it is not illegal
Thanks, SCOTUS.
SCOTUS didn’t say his actions aren’t illegal, only that he can’t face any repercussions for them. There’s a difference bro, it’s uh… trust me.
If there are no repercussions, it’s not illegal.
No repercussions gives no reason to stop.
What a pointless article. It doesn’t even address the key line of the law they’re using for justification, which states “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.” That detail should be the main topic of discussion when the governor is actively against the involvement of the National Guard.
Even if it was, it doesn’t matter. Fuck the law at this point.
