this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
504 points (98.8% liked)

politics

23989 readers
3805 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

California Governor Gavin Newsom has formally requested Trump administration officials to rescind the order to deploy the National Guard and return control of the force to California, calling the initial order unlawful and "intentionally designed to inflame the situation."

"I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 75 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 23 points 14 hours ago

I don’t understand how Newsom can’t just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders

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.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 50 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

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?

[–] dhhyfddehhfyy4673@fedia.io 30 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It seems ignoring the constitution while continually & increasingly granting power to the federal government for more than a century may have had some consequences.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago

That's thee theme of this century, didn't you get the memo?

The Consequences of the 20th

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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?

Kinda depends on the orders

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Spin the scenario around; follow the orders of a sane President or a regressive, criminal Governor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door

The above is literally what any conservative voter who happens to be in the Guard would think of the current situation.

The conservative voter is going to side with the conservative politician, regardless of which office they hold.

It’s a messy situation to be in, one fraught with desertion, courts-martial, and sabotage.

Maybe. I guess we'll see.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

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

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TWeaK@lemmy.today 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 20 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago

Move their commission to the state guard.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

There you go. Demote/dismiss anyone that followed Trump's orders... assuming you have a spine, which Newsom doesn't.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 24 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

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)