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

[Servus]

I've been respectful.

Untrue. See below.

Your evasiveness, non-answers, and bad-faith arguments, on the other hand...

 

[7thKeeper]

Untrue. See below.

How is that disrespectful? It's an accurate description.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Untrue. See below.

I call a spade a spade. If you find that disrespectful, then there's the ignore button. Now - back on topic?

 

[rjs330]

Clearly not the case.

I agree part 1 doesn't apply.

Also clearly not the case.

I disagree. When citizens are attacking agents attempting to stop them form doing their jobs and are attacking federal buildings where agents are located, surrounding agents and attempting to prevent them from doing their jobs thats rebellion.

Also clearly not the case - ICE is still arresting people and deporting them.

They are able to arrest people, but that doesn't mean they are able to arrest everyone they are trying to. There are areas in Chicago where people are preventing them from executing their authority. Those stories need to be told. I've seen plenty of videos from the people themselves and their testimonies of how rhey have chased ICE off and prevented them from doing their job.

There are neighborhoods where they have organized watches where when ICE is seen they blow whistles summoning crowds of people who rush the agents.

In my opinion these two things are happening.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

There are neighborhoods where they have organized watches where when ICE is seen they blow whistles summoning crowds of people who rush the agents.

That’s wonderful. I love hearing about communities coming together to protect their own.

 

[Servus]

I call a spade a spade. If you find that disrespectful, then there's the ignore button. Now - back on topic?

How is that disrespectful? It's an accurate description.

No it's ad hominem personal attacks which derail threads.

 

[rjs330]

That’s wonderful. I love hearing about communities coming together to protect their own.

Thus the need for military support. Violations of law and rebellion.

 

[7thKeeper]

No it's ad hominem personal attacks which derail threads.

Pointing out that you aren't answering the question and actively avoiding it isn't a personal attack. It's pointing out the lack of an arguement that you have.

 

[Servus]

Pointing out that you aren't answering the question and actively avoiding it isn't a personal attack.

That can be done without being rude and insulting. As a matter of fact if that hadn't happened, this derail wouldn't have occurred. I wouldn't perform the task of cutting and pasting readily available information that took a minute to find, because people were being disrespectful in their demand for such.

It's pointing out the lack of an arguement that you have.

Specify please. Based on posts I've made in this thread, what's my alleged argument?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I agree part 1 doesn't apply.

I disagree. When citizens are attacking agents attempting to stop them form doing their jobs and are attacking federal buildings where agents are located, surrounding agents and attempting to prevent them from doing their jobs thats rebellion.

No, that's not a rebellion. It's not organized, nor is it trying to overthrow the government or otherwise seize control of the state.

They are able to arrest people, but that doesn't mean they are able to arrest everyone they are trying to.

Law enforcement is never able to arrest everyone that they try to.

 

[rjs330]

No, that's not a rebellion. It's not organized, nor is it trying to overthrow the government or otherwise seize control of the state.

Rebellion doesn't have to just be about overthrowing the entire government.

Law enforcement is never able to arrest everyone that they try to.

Please don't be so disingenuous. You are a smart guy. I was clear about what I was talking about. I know you didnt miss it. If you need further clarity just ask.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Rebellion doesn't have to just be about overthrowing the entire government.

In a literal definition, sure. But in a legal sense, that's a necessary part - otherwise we'd be dropping the full force of the US military on every teenager.

I was clear about what I was talking about.

As was I. The core of what you said is that ICE can't do everything that it wants to do. That doesn't mean that they're prevented from enforcing the law though.

 

[rjs330]

In a literal definition, sure. But in a legal sense, that's a necessary part - otherwise we'd be dropping the full force of the US military on every teenager.

Once again you are being disingenuous. No one here is taking about tee n s rebelling against their parents. We are taking about rebellion against the government and using violence to do it.

As was I. The core of what you said is that ICE can't do everything that it wants to do. That doesn't mean that they're prevented from enforcing the law though.

Ues you were CLEARLY and purposefully misrepresenting what I said. The core is that people ARE preventing them from doing their jobs in certain areas. And falls under title.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No one here is taking about tee n s rebelling against their parents.

Of course not - I was making the point that the word "rebellion" has many meanings, so while saying that "It's a rebellion!" may be technically correct according to one of those many definitions, it does not mean that the situation meets the standard of "rebellion" under the Constitution.

We are taking about rebellion against the government and using violence to do it.

Which is not happening. Again, rebellions are inherently organized and seek to overthrow the authority of the government. That is not happening anywhere in the US today.

The core is that people ARE preventing them from doing their jobs in certain areas.

The reality is that this is not actually happening though. Temporarily being obstructed does not prevent them from doing their jobs in the bigger picture of things. If, for example, the local police or national guard had been instructed by city leadership or the governor to stop ICE from doing their jobs, then you might have a point - that would be very similar to the conditions under which Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Guard. But a few citizens getting in the way of their own volition are in no way comparable.

 

[NotreDame]

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

He’s trolling for Trump, Miller, and Bondi in regards to Title 10, NG, and executive power under Title 10. The du jour is no longer critically assess a position detached as much as possible from party bias.

 

[NotreDame]

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.

Fantastic, except for the conspicuous omission of demonstrating the specific and narrow circumstances of this aspect of Title 10 are satisfied factually.

 

[rjs330]

it does not mean that the situation meets the standard of "rebellion" under the Constitution.

The constitution does not define rebellion as only trying to take over the government as you defined it. Other forms of rebellion against rhe government can apply. And in this case that is what is happening.

The real question should be, is this rebellion justified. Because some rebellions are. You should admit this is a rebellion in places and then answering if it is a justified one. Thats the real discussion.

Which is not happening.

Yes it is. Ive seen the videos.

Again, rebellions are inherently organized and seek to overthrow the authority of the government. That is not happening anywhere in the US today.

These rebellions in these area are organized and often paid for. Of course not every person there is part it, but they dont have to be in order for it to work. Its happening in Portland and Chicago.

The reality is that this is not actually happening though.

Yes it is. We've even had posters on this forum admit it and were proud of it.

Temporarily being obstructed does not prevent them from doing their jobs in the bigger picture of things.

Thats not the definition of obstruction.

If, for example, the local police or national guard had been instructed by city leadership or the governor to stop ICE from doing their jobs, then you might have a point - that would be very similar to the conditions under which Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Guard. But a few citizens getting in the way of their own volition are in no way comparable.

You dont have to have city or state governments to be involved. Thats not a requirement of the law. Having citizens involved is enough.