• okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days 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.

      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

      • “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?

        • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          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.