"Under Title X of the US Code, the President has plenary authority..."

[wing2000]

That's the 2nd time you failed to articulate what constitutes an "emergency".....

 

[Servus]

That's the 2nd time you failed to articulate what constitutes an "emergency".....

Only according to what you consider an emergency. I'd say the situation regarding local law enforcement refusing to enforce the law, constitutes emergency action being taken to bring in the national guard to do what local police won't.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Only according to what you consider an emergency. I'd say the situation regarding local law enforcement refusing to enforce the law, constitutes emergency action being taken to bring in the national guard to do what local police won't.

Newsflash: the president has no authority when it comes to local law enforcement. States' Rights!

Local law enforcement exercising its discretion in who to pursue does not constitute an emergency.

 

[Servus]

Newsflash: the president has no authority when it comes to local law enforcement. States' Rights!

Local law enforcement exercising its discretion in who to pursue does not constitute an emergency.

Local government and law enforcement are refusing to protect. So it's time to bring in the national guard to do the job. That's not going to infringe upon local authorities exercising their right to do nothing.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Local government and law enforcement are refusing to protect.

Has this been legally determined? Or are you just decreeing it to be so?

So it's time to bring in the national guard to do the job. That's not going to infringe upon local authorities exercising their right to do nothing.

Under what authority? Let's see the statute.

 

[rjs330]

Local government and law enforcement are refusing to protect. So it's time to bring in the national guard to do the job. That's not going to infringe upon local authorities exercising their right to do nothing.

Yes and rhe people of Chicago are recognizing the overall failure of Mayor Johnson to protect the people of Chicago.

Mayor Johnson’s 6% Approval Shows: Race-Baiting Can’t Cover up Epic Public Safety Failure

And the police themselves are not supportive of him either.

Shots fired! Police union boss calls Chicago mayor 'piece of garbage' for saying law enforcement a 'sickness' to be 'eradicated' - CWB Chicago

And the FOP doesn't support the top cop. This is a mess in Chicago and people are seeing it.

 

[Servus]

Has this been legally determined? Or are you just decreeing it to be so?

Various news reports.

Under what authority? Let's see the statute.

Title 10 of the US Code.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Various news reports.

News reports are legal rulings now?

Title 10 of the US Code.

Quote it.

ETA: To clarify, the federal government only has authority over federal law. In order to justify federalizing the National Guard, the government must show that federal law is being willfully violated by the state. See, for example, Eisenhower federalizing the Guard to enforce the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education. That is a federal law (the Constitution), and the governor of Arkansas had directed the state's National Guard unit to support its violation, forcing the President to seize control.

Local police not doing their job to your satisfaction is not grounds for a federal response. It is not a national emergency, it is not a violation of federal law, it is not a rebellion or an insurrection. In cases where the feds intervene in local law enforcement matters without the state's request, there must be an explicit violation of federal law, as determined by the Courts.

 

[NotreDame]

Is there any other realistic reason other than facilitating ICE getting their job of rounding up illegal aliens done?

Unsure, as I’m not physically present in Chicago to provide an informed answer to your query.

However, “facilitating” isn’t a statutorily recognized reason or statutorily recognized circumstance under Title 10. Title 10 doesn’t permit the President to federalize, summon, and deploy the NG for purposes of “facilitation.”

 

[NotreDame]

Whatever qualifies was covered by Miller. One can either agree or disagree with what he said.

Let’s set aside the factual dispute for the moment and explore a preliminary question.

Which parts of Title 10 are “covered” by Miller’s comments? Do you know?

 

[NotreDame]

Oh so what he's describing is null and void if he doesn't use the magic word.

Of course not.

Miller did, however, expressly Title 10, and in the midst of his verbosity he was remiss to articulate how anything he said fits within Title 10. Rather, Miller took the luxury to assume some part of his verbal dissertation actually does fit within Title 10.

Maybe you can accomplish what Miller didn’t, articulate which part of Miller’s comments fit within Title 10 and show why they do?

Being familiar with Title 10 myself, some of what Miller said could but could not fit within Title 10 and the existing factual dispute between Miller’s select commentary and the District Judge’s factual findings cast rational doubt upon Miller’s account and vice/versa.

Regardless, assuming as true Miller’s select comments are factually true, the assumed as true facts as expressed by Miller beg the question whether those facts sufficiently meet any part of Title 10.

 

[NotreDame]

It's a matter of opinion for everyone not in authority to make that decision.

Huh? This logic cannot be correct. Whether some point of view, argument, reasoning, is opinion or factual isn’t determined by what the speaker is an “authority” or not. Realistically, it’s an “opinion” either way, yes an “authority” or an “expert” renders an opinion and whether the opinion is true by some measurement of probability is determined by the data, evidence, facts.

What someone says, states, writes, isn’t baptized with legitimacy, truth, and the quality of being correct because of who they are (authority or not).

That type of uncritical analysis but instead near absolute deference to government “authority” is how tyrants, despots, authoritarians aggrandize their power and loss freedoms, loss of liberties, and persecution propagates. This isn’t theoretical, a careful analysis of 20th century authoritarians supports this statement.

So, to the contrary, it is the opinion of Trump, his administration, and Miller that facts fit within Title 10 to legally justify invocation of Title 10 by Trump. They aren’t right just because they say so!

 

[NotreDame]

What difference does it make what I can do? I'm just as powerless in the matter as you are.

^^^^^Reply to the below from Wing2000

wing2000 said:
It's null and void if he can't produce the evidence to back up it up...whatever words he uses. And apparently, you can't either.

“What difference”?

Well, a “difference” is illumination of whether you’re a person inclined to not sufficiently question and/or research and/or investigate what Trump or Miller or the administration claims but instead accept/asaume as true, defend as true, without actually having a sufficient basis to know whether what they’ve said/claimed is true and/or true to some degree of probability to justify believing as true.

A sensible conclusion of your posts is you’re more likely than not inclined to accept as true or accurate what the Trump Admin or its representatives say or state on the basis they’ve commented in relation to a defense or justification of Trump’s federalizing the NG and deploying/attempting to deploy the NG into cities.

That’s the “difference,” a difference undoubtedly manifested in this thread between yourself and the posters you’ve interacted with.

 

[NotreDame]

Only according to what you consider an emergency. I'd say the situation regarding local law enforcement refusing to enforce the law, constitutes emergency action being taken to bring in the national guard to do what local police won't.

Under Title 10? How so?

And yes, I’m expressing justifiable incredulity entirely because I know what Title 10 states and your commentary doesn’t fit within Title 10.

 

[NotreDame]

Miller knows. So does Trump, Noem and Homan.

Do they? You know this how? Demonstrate in a post how all of them or any combination of them “know” what you’ve claimed they “know.”

Surely my request isn’t to demand from you a Sisyphean effort to backup what you chose to claim regarding their knowledge.

 

[Servus]

Do they? You know this how? Demonstrate in a post how all of them or any combination of them “know” what you’ve claimed they “know.”

Surely my request isn’t to demand from you a Sisyphean effort to backup what you chose to claim regarding their knowledge.

Request denied.

 

[Servus]

News reports are legal rulings now?

I'm don't know why I wrote that. I may have intended it for different post.

Quote it.

Here, I got this from the OP: Title 10 of US Code.

ETA: To clarify, the federal government only has authority over federal law. In order to justify federalizing the National Guard, the government must show that federal law is being willfully violated by the state. See, for example, Eisenhower federalizing the Guard to enforce the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling on Brown v. Board of Education. That is a federal law (the Constitution), and the governor of Arkansas had directed the state's National Guard unit to support its violation, forcing the President to seize control.

Local police not doing their job to your satisfaction is not grounds for a federal response. It is not a national emergency, it is not a violation of federal law, it is not a rebellion or an insurrection. In cases where the feds intervene in local law enforcement matters without the state's request, there must be an explicit violation of federal law, as determined by the Courts.

Trump, Noem, Homan and Miller etc seem to see it differently. And it's their call, not mine.

 

[NotreDame]

Request denied.

Correction, you can’t, hence, request denied because of what you’re incapable of doing.

You shouldn’t pretend you’re a modern day Pythia in the Greek Temple, divining what they “know.”

You have expressed a vacuous position over the span of your posts. You have demonstrated little to no formal knowledge, education, familiarity or acquaintance with Title 10. This demonstration occurred by some of your personal comments not fitting within Title 10, an inability to defend the Admin claims in response to their invocation of Title 10, and your statements constituting a defense of Admin claims which are illogical in some instance, and assumed as true based upon little to nothing substantive in the posts.

 

[NotreDame]

I'm don't know why I wrote that. I may have intended it for different post.

Here, I got this from the OP: Title 10 of US Code.

Perfect. You’ve finally linked to Title 10. Now maybe a productive, engaging, intellectual dialogue and exchange of ideas can transpire regarding Admin cloaks and Title 10.

So, which part now of Title 10 supports Trump’s federalizing the NG and attempt to deploy the NG under Title 10?

Trump, Noem, Homan and Miller etc seem to see it differently. And it's their call, not mine.

Yes, we are all well aware, absent you’re being one of those 4 people anonymously posting here, that “it’s their call, not mine.”

You aren’t being asked to proverbially “make the call.” Rather, your bias toward the Admin and deference to accepting as correct the Admin claims regarding Title 10, and your few remarks in defense of the Admin/Miller statements justifying invocation of Title 10 to federalize and delploy the NG into cities, has rightly led people to request of you an argument that the Admin and Miller’s comments regarding Title 10 are correct.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Here, I got this from the OP: Title 10 of US Code.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the text of Title 10. I'm asking you to cite the specific part of it that you think supports your argument.

Trump, Noem, Homan and Miller etc seem to see it differently. And it's their call, not mine.

It isn't really their call though - we're not a monarchy or a dictatorship, where simply the word of the government is law. We're a nation of laws, and therefore any action that the government takes must have a basis in law. Since they're not here to give their arguments, and you appear to be whole-heartedly behind them, I'm asking you why that is. What have they said or done to convince you that this is a fully legal and appropriate course of action?