President Trump's Saturday night "memorandum" federalizing 2000 California National Guard troops is a tentative step toward abusing authorities for domestic use of the military, but a dangerous one.
I think we need to acknowledge that Trump and his allies have exposed the single greatest weakness of our system: constraints on the President are unenforceable if the President will not voluntarily abide by the law and decision of the courts.
The need to appear legitimate to their supporters (if not to everyone) leads the Trump Administration to twist and wield the law to support their actions as it they were lawful. We are in a moment that has many echos from the civil rights era, though flipped logically and --- in this instance --- unlike the Eisenhower Administration's attempt to enforce Brown v. Board.
Trump's actions may well lead us to a Kent State moment where unjustified and unchecked use of force results in deaths of unarmed innocents. That was an incident that changed people's minds about the Vietnam War protesters. The results would be unpredictable this time because of the influence of social media. Trump is playing with fire and many people will be burned by it.
My gratitude to Mr. Vladeck and the contrarian. I found this piece to be very informative. It's a shame that mainstream media no longer provides this kind of detailed information.
Another thanks to Mr. Vladeck and The Contrarian. Summary VERY useful.
Before reading this summary, I had been panicked by a number of media reports that this was the beginning of a police state.
Mr. Vladeck is clear about the potential for dangerous consequences but is also clear that for now there is authority for this use of that National Guard. Not wise - but arguably legal.
Mr. Vladeck's postscript about whether the governor needed to be asked - a veto - is also very helpful and makes sense.
Mr. Valdeck's analysis helps in developing a response that avoids those dangerous consequences. Up to us, the public, to do the right thing. Protest smart.
I think attention also needs to be paid to how the "protesters" behaved. Protesting is not a problem. Throwing stuff at law enforcement cars, standing in their face and yelling, setting fires are not acceptable. I remember the destruction of property, the fires, the burning of govt buildings and police cars during BLM/George Floyd protests and the total lack of law enforcement, especially in Portland, OR. I DO NOT want to see that kind of protest ever again. Yes, LA & CA authorities should have handled it. Did they? Do we realize how the violent protesters only feed the popularity of this administration as law & order?
As has been noted elsewhere on The Contrarian, the EO that Trump issued to federalize the National Guard was highly unusual because it was not limited to addressing the situation in California. Instead it purported to give Trump the authority to call on the National Guards in any state. I am curious about Steve Vladeck's view of this point.
Isn't there a huge flaw in the EO here? The full text of 10 USC 12406 states that the troops must receive their orders though the the Governor of the state. Has Newsom issued such an order? If not why hasn't California refused to send troops and filed suit?
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. 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.
Mr. Vladeck although I've given this article a heart, I believe it completely understates the Felon's moves. With the full support of the six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court, the Felon is moving (very quickly) to make the United States an authoritarian theocracy.
The Court gave the Felon immunity, enabling him to continue his lawlessness. The Felon has stolen lands along the border, declaring an "invasion" emergency. The Felon has shipped individuals to a foreign prison, without due process, while the Court sits on their hands. The Felon lies to the Courts with impunity. Now the Felon is deploying military personnel, hoping for more violence (while his troll (Steven Miller) calls the protests an insurrection), so he can declare Martial Law.
Here's the kicker: The authorization quoted, that is, "when the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States . . . [he] may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to . . . execute those laws.”1, is for *protection* of the laws. In this case, the actions of ICE and HSI are in direct contradiction to and disregard of the laws regarding habeas, corpus, etc. That is not even to mention the despicable nature of requiring people to show up for their standard immigration hearings so that they can be arrested like lambs led to slaughter.
I think we need to acknowledge that Trump and his allies have exposed the single greatest weakness of our system: constraints on the President are unenforceable if the President will not voluntarily abide by the law and decision of the courts.
The need to appear legitimate to their supporters (if not to everyone) leads the Trump Administration to twist and wield the law to support their actions as it they were lawful. We are in a moment that has many echos from the civil rights era, though flipped logically and --- in this instance --- unlike the Eisenhower Administration's attempt to enforce Brown v. Board.
Trump's actions may well lead us to a Kent State moment where unjustified and unchecked use of force results in deaths of unarmed innocents. That was an incident that changed people's minds about the Vietnam War protesters. The results would be unpredictable this time because of the influence of social media. Trump is playing with fire and many people will be burned by it.
Without the six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court giving the Felon immunity, this never would have happened.
The Felon is hoping for more violence so he can declare Martial Law and make the United States an authoritarian theocracy (Putin's Russia).
My gratitude to Mr. Vladeck and the contrarian. I found this piece to be very informative. It's a shame that mainstream media no longer provides this kind of detailed information.
The MSM decided 20+ years ago, clicks and profits are far better than journalism.
Another thanks to Mr. Vladeck and The Contrarian. Summary VERY useful.
Before reading this summary, I had been panicked by a number of media reports that this was the beginning of a police state.
Mr. Vladeck is clear about the potential for dangerous consequences but is also clear that for now there is authority for this use of that National Guard. Not wise - but arguably legal.
Mr. Vladeck's postscript about whether the governor needed to be asked - a veto - is also very helpful and makes sense.
Mr. Valdeck's analysis helps in developing a response that avoids those dangerous consequences. Up to us, the public, to do the right thing. Protest smart.
I think attention also needs to be paid to how the "protesters" behaved. Protesting is not a problem. Throwing stuff at law enforcement cars, standing in their face and yelling, setting fires are not acceptable. I remember the destruction of property, the fires, the burning of govt buildings and police cars during BLM/George Floyd protests and the total lack of law enforcement, especially in Portland, OR. I DO NOT want to see that kind of protest ever again. Yes, LA & CA authorities should have handled it. Did they? Do we realize how the violent protesters only feed the popularity of this administration as law & order?
As has been noted elsewhere on The Contrarian, the EO that Trump issued to federalize the National Guard was highly unusual because it was not limited to addressing the situation in California. Instead it purported to give Trump the authority to call on the National Guards in any state. I am curious about Steve Vladeck's view of this point.
Isn't there a huge flaw in the EO here? The full text of 10 USC 12406 states that the troops must receive their orders though the the Governor of the state. Has Newsom issued such an order? If not why hasn't California refused to send troops and filed suit?
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. 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.
Mr. Vladeck although I've given this article a heart, I believe it completely understates the Felon's moves. With the full support of the six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court, the Felon is moving (very quickly) to make the United States an authoritarian theocracy.
The Court gave the Felon immunity, enabling him to continue his lawlessness. The Felon has stolen lands along the border, declaring an "invasion" emergency. The Felon has shipped individuals to a foreign prison, without due process, while the Court sits on their hands. The Felon lies to the Courts with impunity. Now the Felon is deploying military personnel, hoping for more violence (while his troll (Steven Miller) calls the protests an insurrection), so he can declare Martial Law.
I suspect that tRump ordered his Maga cult to go into and cause havoc. That way he could blame all the peaceful protesters.
Legal isn't always moral.
Thank you. Clear and concise, no hyperbole, and only justified alarm.
Here's the kicker: The authorization quoted, that is, "when the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States . . . [he] may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to . . . execute those laws.”1, is for *protection* of the laws. In this case, the actions of ICE and HSI are in direct contradiction to and disregard of the laws regarding habeas, corpus, etc. That is not even to mention the despicable nature of requiring people to show up for their standard immigration hearings so that they can be arrested like lambs led to slaughter.
Very clear summary by Steve Vladeck. It’s clear to me that FF47 is overstepping presidential power. ICE=Inciting Californians Enmity