13
Three Republican-led states to send hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington (www.npr.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/usnews@beehaw.org
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Unfortunately the leaders of red states are actually organizing, arming, and putting boots on the ground in this clear civil war, and blue state leaders are either scoring twitter points, or doing nothing at all. I'm worried that the war was already lost when Trump federalized the CA national guard and Newsom didn't immediately call them up for state use and announce they were guarding against illegal federal incursion on CA's state sovereignty.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Governors can’t call up the national guard if they’v been federalized. Federalization super secedes governor orders.

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

    Sure, if you accept the fed's mobilization as legal. Which is the problem.

    He needed to say the federalization was illegal, given that they were clearly being used for law enforcement, and force the guard to actually side with the constitution over the Executive branch.

    This isn't going to end well unless the Left actually starts treating it as the civil war it is.

    "Let the court decide if this blatant constitutional violation we see with our eyes is real or not" is not going to end with the constitution intact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Law as written, calling them up was legal, and, law as written the governor had no authority to countermand that. Was the civil disturbance real? Not really. Was the behavior of the ICE agents legal, definitely not. But, calling up the national guard just in case there is a civil disturbance is legal. And the president doing so against the will of the governor is also legal, as can be seen with the Little Rock nine in 1957. The governor saying “no don’t actually” would have been ignored by the national guard, and ultimately would have been worse then what happened. The situation didn’t escalate and thus trump didn’t really get what he wanted.

    It’s going to keep happening though and something will break at some point. It’s also worth pointing out that newsome is hardly “the left” most of the Democratic Party isn’t “the left”. And they’re going to sleep walk through this national crisis because that’s what’s most convenient to them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    The moment the guards were deployed as part of arrest operations with ICE, like at the park, it was not legal under PC. That's not just my opinion; CA currently has a lawsuit asserting just that.

    The deployment of them in DC is another pseudo-legal deployment, the point of which is to normalize NG units being deployed into other states.

    Newsom isn't the Left, but unfortunately the 'true' Left is being just as feckless as the neolibs are. The disavowal of anything but perfect pacifism may be pure rhetoric in some of their minds, to shield them from being scapegoated, but the net effect is that the Left and the neolibs both are at least publicly not treating this situation as what it is.

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

    Realistically, I don’t think trump is getting what he wants out of all this, normalization is not the goal, none of this is particularly exceptional in regards to how the national guard has been used in the pass. Situations like the battle of blair mountain for example.

    Far more likely he’s trying to instigate chaos, create news stories he can spin to his base about how out of control things are, attempt to justify to them further consolidation of power, as well as create a plausibly deniable excuse to invoke legitimately more extreme measures like the insurrection act that would let him straight up ignore PC.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    none of this is particularly exceptional in regards to how the national guard has been used in the pass. Situations like the battle of blair mountain for example.

    Blair Mountain is absolutely exceptional, and treating it as though the fact it has happened makes it normal is literally normalization.

    Far more likely he’s trying to instigate chaos, create news stories he can spin to his base about how out of control things are, attempt to justify to them further consolidation of power, as well as create a plausibly deniable excuse to invoke legitimately more extreme measures like the insurrection act that would let him straight up ignore PC.

    I don't know if you missed D.C., but all that he needed to "justify" multiple states deploying NG troops to DC, and federalizing the police force, was one asshole getting carjacked. He doesn't need to instigate anything, his base is already on board with his plans, including trampling over PC. "Legitima[cy]" has not stopped him invoking the Alien Enemies Act, so I'm not sure why you think he's going to need his eventual claim of Insurrection Act violation to be any more legitimate.

    There is no space between what he will consider insurrection, and compliance, for you to safely remain in by not rocking the boat. It's one or the other in his (and his base's) mind.

    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

    • Aesop
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent