- Aug 18, 2012
- 25,469
- 21,519
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That's the 2nd time you failed to articulate what constitutes an "emergency".....
Upvote
0
-
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.
"Under Title X of the US Code, the President has plenary authority..."
- Thread starter RocksInMyHead
- Start date
That's the 2nd time you failed to articulate what constitutes an "emergency".....
- Oct 2, 2020
- 29,234
- 15,743
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 9,561
- 10,368
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
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.
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 29,234
- 15,743
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 9,561
- 10,368
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Has this been legally determined? Or are you just decreeing it to be so?
Under what authority? Let's see the statute.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 29,234
- 15,743
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 29,234
- 15,743
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Rebellion + obstruction of justice + dereliction of duty = democrats.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 9,561
- 10,368
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
News reports are legal rulings now?
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.”
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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?
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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!
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
^^^^^Reply to the below from Wing2000
“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.
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Okay. This supports what I’ve suspected, you are very inclined to accept as true or correct what this Admin states, says, or claims in this area of nationalizing the NG and deploying the NG into city/cities with de minimis scrutiny of the veracity of those claims, statements, says to no scrutiny. It is probable your near zero adulterated, near 100% unmitigated, deference extends to whatever the Admin says.
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 29,234
- 15,743
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Oct 2, 2020
- 29,234
- 15,743
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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.
Trump, Noem, Homan and Miller etc seem to see it differently. And it's their call, not mine.
Upvote
0
- Jan 24, 2008
- 9,597
- 2,516
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
Upvote
0
