810
Life advice (slrpnk.net)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    "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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

    You skipped over reading this part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    is by definition a rebellious act.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No. That is far, far below sufficient. An example of a rebellion is when the confederacy decided slaves were more important than unity and literally attempted to form another government. There are many other examples of rebellion you can draw from history, and from fiction that all seek usurping power and wholesale replacement of the existing government. That is a whole different ballgame than harassing some cosplaying nazis that are overstepping the bounds of civility and getting butthurt that people aren't licking their boots.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent