Because the CNN article seems to have accidentally omitted it, allow me to paste the full text of 18 U.S. Code § 1385, the Posse Comitatus Act:
> Whoever, except in cases and under 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.
Active duty can guard federal buildings and federal agents. Not sure that is how they will use them. When I was active duty I assisted in multiple weather related catastrophic events and I am glad they did not argue against our use. We helped many citizens in a time the national guard would not have been sufficient.
I'm sure you can agree there is a difference between disaster relief and "suppressing a rebellion".
After the first Gulf War they sent us to Greensboro, NC to march in some parade and no one argued against that either because we weren't being used in any law enforcement capacity. Honestly, if we were there for 'riot control' I doubt they would have given us such a warm welcome.
Speaking of rebellion since you guys are experts on this I want to know who is bringing in all the violent rioters from other parts of the US and handing them the same size, shape Mexican flag that are all folded the same way same creases. Is it the same US taxpayer funded NGO's that were smuggling them into the US? And why the Mexican flag? Isn't that the very place they are trying to stay out of and wouldn't a Mexican flag imply an invasion from Mexico? I would think they would want to wave around a US flag since they want to stay here. Several things are just off about all of this. It feel like I am watching a movie produced by really lazy script writers. Is it just me? I am fine with them burning the US flag since they are following the flag protocol of the United States of America, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
> Speaking of rebellion since you guys are experts on this I want to know who is bringing in all the violent protestors from other parts of the US and handing them the same size, shape Mexican flag that are all folded the same way.
No one is bringing people in, the flags being waved aren't all Mexican and the Mexican flags are a variety of different sizes and the LA local community, including its ~3.5 million residents of Mexican ethnicity, has quite a few Mexican flags of all shapes and sizes without needing any people or flags brought in from outside.
> Isn't that the very place they are trying to stay out of and wouldn't a Mexican flag imply an invasion from Mexico?
Mexican flags are a common symbol of pride in and solidarity with the community of Mexican ethnicity, rather than serving as agents of Mexico-the-republic, just as Confederate flags are a common symbol of pride in the White racist community, rather than serving as agents of the long-defunct putative regime.
> It feel like I am watching a movie produced by really lazy script writers.
Yeah, well, I won't comment on the “really lazy” part, but unless you are present watching it with your own eyes, you absolutely are watching something packaged for you as propaganda: everything you are seeing is edited to present a narrative by the people presenting it.
everything you are seeing is edited to present a narrative by the people presenting it.
That much I can agree with for sure. I've watched media that align left, center, right along with YT influencers that align left center and right. Each spin their own yarn. One would think they are all looking at different events but I can see what they are looking at.
The argument seems to be more of a no-confidence move because the Californians can't keep order. They'll presumably treat the wording seriously but I think the "form of rebellion" is more a jab at the people who keep harping on about insurrections. Looks like a bad argument from any angle I can think of (they aren't invited and there isn't an actual rebellion to put down).
That's from June 7th, before the deployment of Marines. It only justifies the federalization of the National Guard, but as far as that goes, it appears to be a very reasonable interpretation of the law:
Whenever...the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States; the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to ... execute those laws.
Notably, it doesn't say the governor has the right to refuse those "orders". If the governor had that right, they would be requests, not orders.
A very interesting article about this situation from a Georgetown law professor was posted somewhere deep in this discussion and is well worth reading.
The professor is strongly opposed to the deployment, and calls it "dangerous" and "pernicious" among other things. Nonetheless, he "thinks the federal government has both the constitutional and statutory authority to override local and state governments when it comes to law and order" and that "this [clause] is better understood as a purely administrative provision than it is as giving a substantive veto to the governor."
According to Governor Newsom he wasn't communicated with at all.
In an interview with All Things Considered host Juana Summers, Newsom said the mobilization order was not done with communication to or approval by his office. [1]
As someone who knows absolutely nothing about what’s happening in LA, it is actually useful to hear what the govt is claiming as a justification, then the reader can judge how valid it is.
Not everyone will critically assess the validity of the government's claims. When the press repeats such statements without scrutiny or fact-checking, it does real harm. Many people will uncritically echo what the government says, simply because they already support them.
A statement like "The government is scrambling to justify an unnecessary escalation, driven solely by a president who has praised violent authoritarian leaders, by labeling it an 'insurrection.' When asked for evidence, officials mocked reporters and threatened to exclude them from future briefings." offers verifiable context and reflects the serious threat posed by a leader who appears intent on pushing the country toward chaos.
Sure, but this is HN. The level of critical thinking is far higher IMO.
I personally believe that especially on a forum such as this, it’s fine to expose the administrations claims to daylight and let them be examined and criticized and even mocked.
Is there an official definition? I'm not American but I'm looking at images of locals and foreign nationals burning down cities flying the Mexican flag. ChatGPT tells me the following:
> The authority for the President to use the military in cases of insurrection comes primarily from the Insurrection Act, codified in 10 U.S. Code §§ 251-255. This act provides the statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.
> When unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce federal laws in any state by ordinary judicial proceedings. (10 U.S.C. § 252)
> When an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy in a state hinders the execution of state and federal laws, depriving people of their constitutional rights, and the state authorities are unable, fail, or refuse to protect those rights. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
> When an insurrection opposes or obstructs the execution of U.S. laws or impedes the course of justice under those laws. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
The last time this Act was used was in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots and it withstood all legal contests. This time around it is a stated intent of these rioters to specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts. That's their stated goal which they are very consistent and very loud about in interviews. This clearly satisfies the criteria for the Insurrection Act.
I understand that this is a concerning action, but the law is black and white. If the U.S. and Congress and the House didn't want Presidents to have this power, the country has had more than 200 years to amend it.
> Kind of like using the Insurrection Act to suspend habeas corpus and then threatening judges if they dare to question its legality?
The President does not have a legal right to suspend habeas corpus. Only Congress.
> Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form, lobbying politicians. Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition.
> No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form, lobbying politicians.
I would say that mass groups of people gathering on the streets protesting the same cause is a form of "lobbying politicians".
> Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition.
Sure, if that's what is actually occurring. AFAICT they are mostly peaceful protests with a couple of examples of limited unlawful behavior but that's what the news is showing because burning cop cars make for good ratings.
It's not like the people of LA don't know how to put on a proper riot or anything...
I made a case and asked the other person if they had other information, ideas, or an argument. That's kind of how discussion used to work before we decided pithy soundbites was a suitable replacement for reasoned discussion.
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
People can say whatever they want. Only violent actions qualify as insurrection.
"My Confederate flag. Blue, white, and red! That's my flag! Not this flag. Fuck this flag! I pledge allegiance to the Confederacy. Nobody else. Not this country."
We have seen what happens to the traitors flying the Confederate flag.
Marines have been sent several times to combat mass rioting and violence in the United States under several Presidents. Was done in LA earlier as well.
> Foreign nationals waving flag of their nation, attacking citizens and being in country without permission. Smells like invasion
But is not. Invasions are military offensives involving combatants of a geopolitical entity [1].
If this is an invasion, every rally in which a Confederate flag is waived is a rebellion. Also, § 4 concludes with "and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." The Constitution is very clear about the scope of executive military power within the United States because they weren't illiterate and knew how Rome's republics fell [2].
Hell, even when Hamilton argued for federal control of militias, he underscored that its risk "to the liberties of the people" was mitigated by the fact that the states "have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS," emphasis his [3].
> If they are in country illegally and are throwing rocks and attacking people then yes
For sake of argument, let's grant this.
"A first-time illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $250 and a maximum jail sentence of six months" [1]. Assaulting a federal police officer carries a maximum jail sentence of 5 [2] to ten years [3].
The first category, petty misdemeanors, includes things like DUIs, cyberbullying and vandalism [4]. It also, conveniently, doesn't require a jury trial [5]. Based on your standard, if a tourist is caught driving under the influence, or is suspected of cyberbullying or vandalism, it triggers the threshold upon which, if any violence of any kind is suspected in their vicinity, troops can be deployed against American citizens. (And then they get no jury trial.) Because I will love to see that precedent explored the next time the far right whips up an election-denial conspiracy.
My people is all of humanity and I don't believe any race or nationality should be favored over or considered better than another. There are no (space) alien invaders attacking my people.
My territory is this Spaceship Earth, a speck of dust in a giant uncaring universe, and I share it with all known life in the universe. There is no other life known, and therefore no invaders.
I do have children. I do love my family. I did have a stable, happy childhood. My ethnicity is extremely irrelevant and I'm offended you'd ask.
> What makes someone like you so eager to defend the "invaders"?
I'm not particularly incensed about illegal immigration either way. I think ICE could be more humane. But they're ultimately executing the nation's laws.
What Trump is doing with California's National Guard and the Marines is orthogonal to what he's using to justify it. (The Marines aren't arresting illegal immigrants. They've been deployed against protesters. Mostly Americans.)
To the extent I believe there is a risk from illegal immigrants, it's principally in the risk from cartel violence leaking into America. These sort of theatrics undermine that law-enforcement prerogative by focussing on quantity [1] over quality.
> My instinct is to annihilate them in defence of myself, my family, my people, and our territory
I'm much more concerned about someone with those instincts than I am about nonviolent people. (As would have been our founders.)
> people who are in country illegally are not domestic
"The Clause uses the term 'domestic violence' in the now-archaic sense of '[i]nsurrection or unlawful force fomented from within a country,” and not the modern usage meaning violence between romantic partners or within a household" [1][2].
What is your response supposed to show? You appear to be agreeing with your parent comment.
Is the fact that someone is present in the country illegally more likely to be presented as evidence that that person doesn't count as a source of insurrection "from within the country", or as evidence that the person isn't beating his wife?
> The point is domestic isn't qualifying violence, it's referring to a particular category of threat.
But that is the way TiredOfLife presented it. He says that people who are illegally present don't fall into that category. You respond that he shouldn't be talking about wife beaters. Where did that come from?
(Also, of course, "domestic" is qualifying "violence". It's just doing it in Merriam-Webster's sense 2 rather than sense 3.)
> He says that people who are illegally present don't fall into that category
The term domestic violence cannot be decomposed into domestic and violence. It's a term of art referring to "[i]nsurrection or unlawful force fomented from within a country."
> of course, "domestic" is qualifying "violence"
No, it's not. It would be like arguing that a law that talks about the United States of America doesn't apply if the states aren't united at the time of its application. (It's even stupider, since this is not only a term of art, but an archaic one as well. Decomposing it is akin to using the modern definition for domestic violence to interpret that text.)
If that's the case then let's trigger article 5 and declare war on Mexico! Oh what, you don't actually believe this and just want to hold it in your head as a fiction to excuse the cognitive dissonance of authoritarianism?
> Foreign nationals waving flag of their nation, attacking citizens and being in country without permission. Smells like invasion.
This is such a tabloid and uneducated take. These are riots or unrest, not an invasion. An invasion is a military offensive by a nation-state or global entity. If this was in fact an invasion, the US should invoke NATO article 5.
Do you mean the protesting the work of Federal and ICE agents? Since when did that become 'attacking citizens'?
If that's the bar, then I'm wondering how you'd classify the J6 mob? Remember, the president explicitly pardoned each and every J6 protester who was duly convicted in a court of law by a jury so at best there are some extreme double standards being applied.
You're probably right. (Though fwiw when I left the comment I was the only response and it was not downvoted)
But it just makes me so sad. I think I ought to delete my account. Every time anything US politics-y comes up, especially the supreme court, the comments are filled with such horrible takes. It makes me feel like, if this is the sort of world the people here want and its so different from what I hope for, what common ground do we have.
Why should I care about, idk retrocomputers or WASM OSes etc. if its just to be part of a group that's like this.
Idk, same sort of angst about doing anything on a computer these days. I get embarrassed telling people what I do. People in general seem to hate programmers and the more I go on the more I think they're right.
Idk blehjj, just in a bad mood sorry for ranting. Thanks for the comment, honestly
Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate. I've learned a lot from reading the comments around these stories.
If it starts incensing you, hide the story. (They tend to get flagged off the front page fairly regularly. Something I used to condone until Silicon Valley started showing its authoritarian tendencies.)
> Take it as an opportunity to engage in calm debate
At some point people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive. It feels more like a cop-out to never take a stand for anything. I respect the exasperated outburst of the GP, at least it shows that there is some kind of backbone that will hurt when reading all this bullshit gaslighting.
There's not even a hint in the last 20 years - on both this site and the internet in general - that "calm debate" has done anything to stop fascists from gaslighting every step of the way. Despite their claims to the contrary, they aren't even looking for a debate.
Instead they just get the platform they so actively always wanted and are defended by the tone police to spread their bs, and the more influence they get the looser some people's already frail backbone get. They won't stop. Don't expect it. Don't wait for it.
> people need to understand that this is just completely ahistorical and incredibly naive
We may be talking past each other. I'm not arguing for a general vibe. Just a productive approach to online discussion about politics. It's very unlikely you're going to change someone's mind about partisan politics on this forum. What's more likely is you're going to get some combination of enraged and developed in your thinking about what's going on. So I'm saying to focus, online, on that latter part. Learning. Discussing. All of it calmly, so you can strategise.
That way, when you manifest that anger in the real world, you can do so strategically. Effectively.
I've been online for 20 years. I've learned enough to know what going on now.
10 years ago I'd be laughed out of the room suggesting what reactionary bullshit is going on today, turn back to today, tech at large has just enthusiastically adjusted to the reactionary shift, so it was predictably just hot air all along. Basically, unless your particular wallet has a boot-mark on it, or a suggestion of an upcoming one, people just don't care enough at this place.
The President has authority to do so under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did the same thing when he forced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.
I'm pretty sure you were aware of this but cite the Posse Comitatus Act to make it sound like what Trump is doing is illegal.
You can absolutely argue that what he's doing is unnecessary, disproportional, evil, provocative, etc, but it's not illegal.
> The President has authority to do so under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Note that President Eisenhower did the same thing when he forced desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957
Super unclear.
Governor Wallace of Alabama was overtly rejecting a court order to desegregate. There was a law passed by the Congress. A U.S. court making an order. And the U.S. President enforcing it, including with the military. Wallace was defying the U.S., not just President Eisenhower.
The facts and circumstances here are different. The immigration laws being enforced are clear. But the Marines aren't being deployed against illegal immigrants, they're being deployed against mostly-American protesters. There have been zero court actions specific to these protests. This is being entirely done by the President. Moreover, neither Newsom nor Bass are interfering with ICE. So it's a bit ridiculous to compare a former Confederate state's governor personally blocking a U.S. court decision to mostly-peaceful protesters (and where not, being processed by local and state law enforcement) exercising their Constutional rights to speech and assembly while ICE continues to do what it does relatively unimpeded.
Presidents may not be able to pardon themselves, but they ARE immune from prosecution through the regular legal system for any actions taken as part of the office as president.
The only way to go after them (given the current SCOTUS, who made the ruling above), is impeachment. And for that, the president has to do something so bad that 67 senators are willing to find the president guilty.
> would rather let his home country pay for that. The US have too many incarcerated as is. We should be focusing on dealing with our citizens.
Then you're empowering the President to detain someone solely on suspicion of being a noncitizen. Which will be mighty convenient for a future President when someone says or does something they don't like. (Irrespective of whether they are or are not a citizen.)
Also, these Marines are being deployed against American citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble and speak. Whenever the bill comes in, it will easily have costed many orders of magnitude more than the cost of even a death-row inmate.
That is not my understanding. If a person is a known illegal immigrant they can be deported without ever stepping foot in a courtroom. That has been the case for as long as I can remember.
> If a person is a known illegal immigrant they can be deported without ever stepping foot in a courtroom. That has been the case for as long as I can remember.
You're describing expedited removal, a power enacted by the IIRIRA of 1996 [1].
It only applies to those who "make no claim to lawful permanent resident status, and do not seek asylum or express a fear of persecution." It requires specific procedures be followed that are absolutely not being followed by ICE right now.
Didn't the supreme court determine that presidents have 'broad immunity' for 'official acts'? Of course, they gave future justices some wriggle room with the somewhat vague wording, but the current court seems very sympathetic to the unitary executive theory.
> But the kicker is that the president has an effective Carte Blanche to determine what is an official act.
I think this is where the interpretation of the ruling is wrong: common reading is that it gave the president more power.
Textually, whether it does or doesn't entirely turns on the definition of an "official act" which the Supreme Court very notably left for lower courts to determine on a case by case basis.
>> The immunity [for official acts] the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC).
Including in Trump v United States, which was still ongoing at the time Trump won reelection.
>> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct [of contacting state and other election officials] qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
>> Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. [...] Unlike Trump’s
alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis
is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials
and private persons.
Since it was dismissed without prejudice, it's entirely possible a subsequent Department of Justice reopens it and proceeds with the District Court fact finding the Supreme Court directed.
> Which makes sense or else every DA in the country would have effective veto power over the president
Trump v. United States was decided with respect to "a federal case that was ultimately dismissed by federal district court judge" [1]. It was about the limits of U.S. executive power. Not "every DA in the country."
> Whoever, except in cases and under 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.