-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
Multiple immigration sweeps reported across Los Angeles, with a tense standoff/protest downtown; SEIU union leader arrested
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
BPPLEE
Well-Known Member
- Apr 13, 2022
- 17,085
- 7,934
- 62
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Remember that time Democrats were making people “show their papers” just to buy food during the lockdowns? When Democrats were arresting business owners and charging people with crimes just for getting a haircut?
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 23,728
- 17,558
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
- Aug 18, 2012
- 25,967
- 21,890
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
A federal judge has ruled against President Trump's use of the National Guard in Los Angeles, siding with the state of California's argument that the president erred in how the guard was being activated. The order requires Trump to return control of the National Guard to California Gov. Gavin Newsom by noon Friday (Pacific Time).
In a hearing Thursday, District Judge Charles Breyer rejected an argument by the administration's lawyer that the courts do not have authority to review a president's decision on whether the National Guard is needed.
"That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George. It's not that the leader can simply say something and then it becomes it," the judge said.
In a hearing Thursday, District Judge Charles Breyer rejected an argument by the administration's lawyer that the courts do not have authority to review a president's decision on whether the National Guard is needed.
"That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George. It's not that the leader can simply say something and then it becomes it," the judge said.
Upvote
0
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 27,298
- 30,231
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
- Aug 18, 2012
- 25,967
- 21,890
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The judge's temporary restraining order:
Regarding the Trump's assertion of a "rebellion":
".....the Court observes that the dictionary definitions from the turn of the century share several key characteristics. First, a rebellion must not only be violent but also be armed. Second, a rebellion must be organized. Third, a rebellion must be open and avowed. Fourth, a rebellion must be against the government as a whole—often with an aim of overthrowing the government—rather than in opposition to a single law or issue."
The ruling goes on to describe why DOJ failed to present evidence of a rebellion.
Freedom of Expression:
"Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.
.....
"In short, individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” is untenable and dangerous. In a short paragraph, Defendants suggest that even if there was no rebellion that would justify federalizing the National Guard, there was still a “danger of a rebellion,” which would satisfy § 12406. Opp. at 16. This argument cannot withstand scrutiny."
President's ability to Execute the Laws:
"Defendants argue that they satisfy this condition because the Los Angeles protests threatened the safety of federal law enforcement personnel and interfered with the sites where ICE agents were enforcing alien removal laws. Opp. at 16. Defendants concede that ICE succeeded in arresting 44 people on June 6, but insist that “that limited success came with the risk of danger,” and that, had the protests not interfered with their operations, ICE “would have been able to carry out additional execution-of-the-laws activity.” Id. Whether ICE could have detained more people in the absence of the protests is mere conjecture—Defendants provide no support for that assertion."
Even assuming that Defendants are correct, however, the statute does not allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws. Nor does the statute allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces some risk in executing the laws, though of course federal employees should never have to fear danger when performing their jobs. The statute requires that the President be “unable” to execute the laws of the United States. That did not happen here
Regarding the Trump's assertion of a "rebellion":
".....the Court observes that the dictionary definitions from the turn of the century share several key characteristics. First, a rebellion must not only be violent but also be armed. Second, a rebellion must be organized. Third, a rebellion must be open and avowed. Fourth, a rebellion must be against the government as a whole—often with an aim of overthrowing the government—rather than in opposition to a single law or issue."
The ruling goes on to describe why DOJ failed to present evidence of a rebellion.
Freedom of Expression:
"Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.
.....
"In short, individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” is untenable and dangerous. In a short paragraph, Defendants suggest that even if there was no rebellion that would justify federalizing the National Guard, there was still a “danger of a rebellion,” which would satisfy § 12406. Opp. at 16. This argument cannot withstand scrutiny."
President's ability to Execute the Laws:
"Defendants argue that they satisfy this condition because the Los Angeles protests threatened the safety of federal law enforcement personnel and interfered with the sites where ICE agents were enforcing alien removal laws. Opp. at 16. Defendants concede that ICE succeeded in arresting 44 people on June 6, but insist that “that limited success came with the risk of danger,” and that, had the protests not interfered with their operations, ICE “would have been able to carry out additional execution-of-the-laws activity.” Id. Whether ICE could have detained more people in the absence of the protests is mere conjecture—Defendants provide no support for that assertion."
Even assuming that Defendants are correct, however, the statute does not allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws. Nor does the statute allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces some risk in executing the laws, though of course federal employees should never have to fear danger when performing their jobs. The statute requires that the President be “unable” to execute the laws of the United States. That did not happen here
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 18,106
- 6,921
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Neither is getting *illegals* deported related to white supremacy, as was suggested.
Upvote
0
The order by the lower court regarding rhe NG has been suspended by an appellate court. It was not overturned, but halted. Next week there is another hearing.
Upvote
0
Where it will likely be overturned. it's not like the definition of rebellion is going to be changed by a higher court.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
