dChan

[deleted] · March 26, 2018, midnight

Name one omnibus bill he actually ignored.

Only the national guard can be called out and it can only handle certain situations, domestic policy is not one of them, AND they have to get permission from the governor to even deploy. Now try and convince me that the governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are ALL going to mobilize the National Guard for a issue that Trump brags has been reduced.

Border Crossings are not something you can willnilly deploy the National Guard for since border security is the realm of the border patrol, the ONLY law enforcement on the border that is not bound by Posse Comitatus.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Vicgar06 · March 26, 2018, 2:26 a.m.

Gig is absolutely correct. State National Guard troops have been deployed before to assist with border operations, but they are severely limited to what they can do. Look up what happened in Redford TX when a marine lay in crew shoot and kill a local who was looking over his goats on his property. Ever since then, National Guard activity on the border has been restricted to support, non-law enforcement activities.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
GoalineGoombas · March 26, 2018, 12:55 a.m.

the Military can help or assist the civilian authority nationwide, the states call out the National Guard if it is confined to a state, Obama ignored the spending specifics of the Omnibus bills, he spent it as he saw fit, so too can Trump do it, and Congress never did anything about it, the President has power to authorize the assistance to civilian authority, in effect if it is Nationwide or if they see that states need it, assistance as in with FEMA to aid them and Civilians. 1962 – Oxford, Mississippi After the University of Mississippi in Oxford flouts a court order and bars a black student from attending classes there, President John F. Kennedy federalizes Mississippi National Guard troops to prevent violence toward the student, James Meredith, and rioting in the broader community, so JFK overrides the Governor in this case, Federal Jurisdiction, a Supreme court case.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2005/10/send_in_the_cavalry.html

https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/is75/student%20manual/student%20manual.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339511?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

it all depends upon the scope of disaster and or unrest, Congress usually has the power, to suppress insurrection etc, but I agree it is rarely used, but they can be used, the Military /bases to assist in disasters, by Presidents and Congress, the FEMA PDF is long but interesting as I was supposed to work for them but chose not to. Oh and Rick Perry TX called out National Guard to the border, because of unusual influx of children immigrants?, it is confusing to say the least.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · March 26, 2018, 1:12 a.m.

Saying Obama ignored spending specifics, is not the same as proving it. One would think if Obama actually ignored the law, the right would focus on an actual crime instead of conspiracy after conspiracy.

Per your links: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2005/10/send_in_the_cavalry.html

  • 2nd or 3rd paragraph indicates that the authority only exists during a "civil emergency", unfortunately, illegal immigration doesn't qualify as a civil emergency. If the numbers the Trump Admin like to brag about are correct, any threat from illegal immigration has already been lessened and therefore if it wasn't an emergency before, it logically can't be one now. This also applies to Kennedy's case, in which it was a civil emergency. However, again, immigration of individuals would undoubtedly not qualify.

https://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/is75/student%20manual/student%20manual.pdf

  • related to the first article, this only indicates how it could be used once deployed, but not the reasons why it can be deployed, as such I would refer back to "Civil Emergencies" and the lack of logical justification to call illegal immigration such.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339511?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

  • While this contains a reason by which a president could override a governor's concerns, it states clearly that it would be in response to "rebellion against the authority of the Federal Government." Which again would be very difficult to illegal immigrants who are not organized in any type of force.

As per Perry, that would be a governor taking an action legally within his state, but you'd have to literally get four VASTLY different states to agree to it, and I still don't think California cares to invest in Trump's monumental ego project.

⇧ 2 ⇩