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
If it's unlawful, you don't need to ask. Just tell them to go home.
He's giving Trump an off-ramp before escalation. Most politicians are better at politics than Trump is, they don't go straight to the nuclear option.
Maybe you should when the National Guard is illegally occupying your state? If not now, when?
Expecting Trump to play ball and use California as anything but a whipping boy is a pipe dream.
After you give Trump a peaceful off-ramp, as I said.
You may be keen to jump straight into a full blown civil war but most people would rather see that all reasonable efforts to avoid it are taken first.
Reacting to an illegal occupation of the state you govern is not the part where some party involved is jumping straight into civil war! If you would like to know which one is doing that, the context clues are in the first 5 words of the sentence.
The command structure allows the president to issue those orders. The president's justification for issuing those orders is illegal; the orders themselves are not.
The command structure also constitutionally empowers Newsom to fire the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the California National Guard, effectively disbanding their units.
I'm betting that California has some emergency provision allowing the governor to deputize these individuals into the California State Police.
I think Trump has done enough here to actually get himself convicted by the senate.
The one follows the other.
The president can not order the military to do peacekeeping operations on US soil without a justification to do so. If the justification to do so is illegal, then so is the act of ordering it.
That determination can only be authoritatively be made by the courts. Until the courts say otherwise, the president's order is presumed lawful, and the subordinate officers are compelled to obey it.
The order is one that the president is allowed to make in the specific circumstances described in the order. If the courts determine those circumstances are present, the order will have been determined to be lawful.
Newsom's authority is limited to the "appointment of officers". He can functionally disband the California National Guard, but he can't otherwise countermand the president's order.
This is a roundabout way of making the point I was trying to make.
Newsome said it was unlawful. If it is, then he should be doing more than make social media posts about it.
He wasn't using the social media post as his official action. He was announcing to the public that he had taken official action (thru the proper Dept. Of Defense channels).