politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand how Newsom can't just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders.
I'm not a lawyer but the statute in the Constitution that is written into the executive order as the authorization for it literally says the national guard are under control of the state Governor.
Why can't Newsom give the guard orders and tell Trump to go fuck himself and see what happens? I guess at that point you'll have conflicting orders from federal and state but, in theory, the national guard are under command of the state Governor and he's their highest authority. So they should follow Newsom's orders.
Like I said IANAL so I'm sure I'm missing something but for fuck sake this is outrageous. We're rounding people up for not having a paper, they're not even hardened criminals. If this was hardcore enforcement of actual dangerous people that would be one thing. These are just innocent undocumented migrants trying to live the their lives same as the rest of us.
I don't remember the law or EO that made it so, but sometime after September 11th the President was granted the power to take command of the National Guard. That's not what the Constitution says? Throw it on the pile.
In practical terms, in any given situation where both are giving conflicting or even antagonistic orders, do you listen to the governor of your state or the President of the United States?
It seems ignoring the constitution while continually & increasingly granting power to the federal government for more than a century may have had some consequences.
That's thee theme of this century, didn't you get the memo?
The Consequences of the 20th
Kinda depends on the orders
Spin the scenario around; follow the orders of a sane President or a regressive, criminal Governor?
Except that judgement call is largely subjective. The above is literally what any conservative voter who happens to be in the Guard would think of the current situation.
It's a messy situation to be in, one fraught with desertion, courts-martial, and sabotage.
The last time it happened was pretty much your spin scenario. I was 5 at the time and remember my parents following it in the newspaper.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-20/lbj-sends-federal-troops-to-alabama
They're required to serve at the president's command as leader of the military/executive branch. As long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Which they swore an oath to.
If trump gives any orders that go against that, then they are required to disobey them. They will not be allowed to use them as a defense during trial, or if something like the Nürburgring trial happens.
Right now, it's not against the constitution. Yet. There's a loophole they're using and Gavin knows it. He's also too much of a coward to use similar tactics against trump, so he'll high road California right into federal control.
Minor thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring compared to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
Ah, crap, good catch, thank you :) My bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door
The conservative voter is going to side with the conservative politician, regardless of which office they hold.
Maybe. I guess we'll see.
I don't think that's right, other articles refer to another time the President deployed the National Guard without the respective governor's consent, and it was back in like 1965.
Ultimately, the President is the head of the military, and the National Guard is a part of that.
The National Guard is not part of the military.
The National Guard is part of the militia. 10 USC 246.
The relevant difference here is that the president does not have the power to appoint National Guard officers. That power is reserved to the states under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.
Newsom is constitutionally empowered to disband the California National Guard, by discharging their Commissioned and Non-Commissioned officers.
There you go. Demote/dismiss anyone that followed Trump's orders... assuming you have a spine, which Newsom doesn't.
Move their commission to the state guard.
That would mean confronting Trump directly, and Newsom is a coward who doesn't really expect the Nat Guard to follow his orders over Trump's.
Doesn’t the insurrection act allow the US president to take control of the national guard, even without a governor’s consent?
Hence the reason Trump keeps calling protestors “insurrectionists.”
(Not that I agree with Trump’s bullshit)