Dude, you’re a muppet if you think everything he has done is within the law. The only reason he is getting away with breaking the law is because the only check is the legislature’s power of impeachment and it has been captured by the fascists.
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard In Federal Service
(3): […] Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states
Trump specifically did not engage with Newsom in commandeering CA National Guard troops.
18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under the 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.
Using the military for ICE enforcement is against the law.
“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
This is conflating “rebellious” with a rebellion. Rebellion is an uprising that resists and is organized against one’s government. The scale and degree matter, here. Your definition would turn any civil disobedience into a “rebellion” which is farcical on its face.
So an organised resistance of ice (the federal government) from carrying out their duty. On a scale large enough that the local police could not maintain the laws of the nation. Is that of sufficient scale and resistance?
The only people who have done anything illegal are the rioters. U might not like what trumps doing but it is entirely within the rule of law
Point of order:
“Illegal” isn’t always “immoral”. “Legal” isn’t always “moral”.
If one’s best defense is “it’s not technically illegal”, that’s a very weak spot to be in.
So ur advocating for breaking the law if u personally think the law is immortal?
Isn’t that exactly what the jan6 insurrectionists where doing?
Or are you the arbiter of morality and everyone else immoral?
Eat your cake or have it u can’t have both.
That’s strange, how has he lost so many court cases then (overseen by judges he appointed)
Dude, you’re a muppet if you think everything he has done is within the law. The only reason he is getting away with breaking the law is because the only check is the legislature’s power of impeachment and it has been captured by the fascists.
Related to la what has he done that’s illegal?
Maybe a fucking insurrection on Jan 6?
Maybe raping fucking toddlers (Epstein files, which he’s starkly refused to release)?
Or, maybe ordering ICE to blockade traffic in order to deliberately incite chaos as an excuse to use the army.
Did u read the part of my comment when I said in relation to la? The ironic thing is that jan6 was more peicful than what’s happening lol.
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard In Federal Service
(3): […] Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the states
Trump specifically did not engage with Newsom in commandeering CA National Guard troops.
18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under the 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.
Using the military for ICE enforcement is against the law.
Want more information? https://youtu.be/zJ7Dfca4_y8
“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
This is conflating “rebellious” with a rebellion. Rebellion is an uprising that resists and is organized against one’s government. The scale and degree matter, here. Your definition would turn any civil disobedience into a “rebellion” which is farcical on its face.
So an organised resistance of ice (the federal government) from carrying out their duty. On a scale large enough that the local police could not maintain the laws of the nation. Is that of sufficient scale and resistance?