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

[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?

 

[rjs330]

Rebellion + obstruction of justice + dereliction of duty = democrats.

In Chicago and Portland for sure.

 

[NxNW]

The only reason why deportation is more prolific now is because the Biden administration let so many extra millions enter illegally.

Never happened.

This mess is a result of new radical left policies that are the real danger. The big threat Trump poses is putting an end to it.

There are no such policies.

 

[Servus]

Never happened.

You know what? That's the last time I'm ever going to read that. Bye.

 

[Servus]

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.

I already posted that in this thread, which is only 4 pages long.

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?

I never stated any of that. I just reiterated their position as an observer.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I already posted that in this thread, which is only 4 pages long.

No, you did not.

I never stated any of that. I just reiterated their position as an observer.

Do you recall making this claim?

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.

 

[Servus]

No, you did not.

Did too.

Do you recall making this claim?

Yep. Now go find the post you're asking about.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Did too.

Yep. Now go find the post you're asking about.

You mean this?

Title 10 of the U.S. Code grants the President authority over the National Guard and provides specific powers for their deployment, particularly within the United States during domestic emergencies established by the Constitution.

Because that's not a quote from Title 10.

 

[Servus]

You mean this?

Because that's not a quote from Title 10.

Oops.

 

[7thKeeper]

I already posted that in this thread, which is only 4 pages long.

No you haven't. You only posted a link to the entire thing. Not once have you actually pointed out the relevent parts from there. You don't get to make wild claims about what you've done, we can read what you actually wrote.

 

[Servus]

No you haven't. You only posted a link to the entire thing. Not once have you actually pointed out the relevent parts from there. You don't get to make wild claims about what you've done, we can read what you actually wrote.

Oh my, how bossy. "We" are consistently impolite and disrespectful, which isn't going to get them anywhere.

 

[7thKeeper]

Oh my, how bossy. "We" are consistently impolite and disrespectful, which isn't going to get them anywhere.

Hey, if you can't back up what you claim, not anyone else's fault but yours. You even provided the link, but couldn't point out what's actually relevant there. It's hard to take an argument seriously when you avoid making any specific points to back yourself up.

 

[Servus]

Hey, if you can't back up what you claim, not anyone else's fault but yours. You even provided the link, but couldn't point out what's actually relevant there. It's hard to take an argument seriously when you avoid making any specific points to back yourself up.

I don't acquiesce to rude demands. Treat me with anything other than respect and "we" gets nothing.

Bossiness gets "we" nothing.

Rudeness gets "we" nothing

Manipulation tactics gets "we" nothing.

Respect usually leads to something.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Oops.

Oops indeed. Now, would you care to answer the question, or are you just going to keep playing games? Because that would be...disrespectful.

 

[Servus]

Oops indeed. Now, would you care to answer the question, or are you just going to keep playing games? Because that would be...disrespectful.

Well if you hadn't done the snarky "playing games" bit I might have.

 

[7thKeeper]

I don't acquiesce to rude demands. Treat me with anything other than respect and "we" gets nothing.

Nothing rude about it, blunt perhaps. But perhaps a good starting point would be to respectfully show what you're arguing specifically instead of avoiding doing so.

Well if you hadn't done the snarky "playing games" bit I might have.

Uh huh. Sure you would have.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well if you hadn't done the snarky "playing games" bit I might have.

I've really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt over the past several months. I see now that it's pointless.

 

[Servus]

Nothing rude about it, blunt perhaps. But perhaps a good starting point would be to respectfully show what you're arguing specifically instead of avoiding doing so.

Uh huh. Sure you would have.

I've really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt over the past several months. I see now that it's pointless.

Anything but simply being respectful.

 

[Servus]

President Trump has cited Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 12406 as the authority to deploy the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property.

§12406. National Guard in Federal service: call
Whenever-
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) 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 repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

Section 12406 of Title 10 permits the President to call the National Guard into federal service under specific circumstances, including invasion, rebellion, or when unable to execute laws with regular forces.

Section 12406 is distinct from the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 251-255). The Insurrection Act specifically allows the president to use the military for civilian law enforcement during an insurrection, while Section 12406, when used alone, does not override the Posse Comitatus Act and restricts federalized troops to a supportive role, such as protecting property. The decision to use Section 12406 instead of the Insurrection Act may be due to its potentially lower political sensitivity, but it has resulted in legal ambiguity and debate over presidential authority.