Yeah okay. Like a strongly worded letter is gonna do anything?
Gavin: Just fly to DC and physically smack Trump around. You're in way better shape than he is, you're guaranteed to win.
I'm assuming that he's just creating a paper trail for when things inevitably escalate. If this is all he's got, though, it's pretty weak.
The best Newsom is going to be able to do is pull trump onto his podcast and "have a conversation with him" where he makes more steps to the right to hopefully nab some more "principled Republican" voters.
I have so much more faith in East LA to fight back than anyone in a position of power.
This is an example of somebody in a position of power fighting back. He may be a shitbag in general, but he is fighting back.
Fighting back would have been ordering them to withdraw using his lawful authority, and if they refused, ordering their arrest. This is just fucking around.
We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved.
Is an insane thing for the Governor to claim when ICE was snatching random people off the street.
Paramount had a huge problem when ICE just started grabbing people out of the front of a Home Depot for being brown. That triggered the public backlash which got the news coverage which lead to Trump trying to launch a Fallujah style invasion of LA.
The situation was fully fucked by lawless ICE officially kidnapping people well before Trump tried to ratchet tensions further.
You're conflating two different problems. Yes, ICE kidnapping people was a problem before the national guard thing, but Newsom's words were specifically about a problem with the protests.
I don't understand how Newsom can't just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders.
I'm not a lawyer but the statute in the Constitution that is written into the executive order as the authorization for it literally says the national guard are under control of the state Governor.
Why can't Newsom give the guard orders and tell Trump to go fuck himself and see what happens? I guess at that point you'll have conflicting orders from federal and state but, in theory, the national guard are under command of the state Governor and he's their highest authority. So they should follow Newsom's orders.
Like I said IANAL so I'm sure I'm missing something but for fuck sake this is outrageous. We're rounding people up for not having a paper, they're not even hardened criminals. If this was hardcore enforcement of actual dangerous people that would be one thing. These are just innocent undocumented migrants trying to live the their lives same as the rest of us.
I don't remember the law or EO that made it so, but sometime after September 11th the President was granted the power to take command of the National Guard. That's not what the Constitution says? Throw it on the pile.
In practical terms, in any given situation where both are giving conflicting or even antagonistic orders, do you listen to the governor of your state or the President of the United States?
It seems ignoring the constitution while continually & increasingly granting power to the federal government for more than a century may have had some consequences.
That's thee theme of this century, didn't you get the memo?
The Consequences of the 20th
In practical terms, in any given situation where both are giving conflicting or even antagonistic orders, do you listen to the governor of your state or the President of the United States?
Kinda depends on the orders
Spin the scenario around; follow the orders of a sane President or a regressive, criminal Governor?
Except that judgement call is largely subjective. The above is literally what any conservative voter who happens to be in the Guard would think of the current situation.
It's a messy situation to be in, one fraught with desertion, courts-martial, and sabotage.
They're required to serve at the president's command as leader of the military/executive branch. As long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Which they swore an oath to.
If trump gives any orders that go against that, then they are required to disobey them. They will not be allowed to use them as a defense during trial, or if something like the Nürburgring trial happens.
Right now, it's not against the constitution. Yet. There's a loophole they're using and Gavin knows it. He's also too much of a coward to use similar tactics against trump, so he'll high road California right into federal control.
Minor thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring compared to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
I don't think that's right, other articles refer to another time the President deployed the National Guard without the respective governor's consent, and it was back in like 1965.
Ultimately, the President is the head of the military, and the National Guard is a part of that.
The National Guard is not part of the military.
The National Guard is part of the militia. 10 USC 246.
The relevant difference here is that the president does not have the power to appoint National Guard officers. That power is reserved to the states under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.
Newsom is constitutionally empowered to disband the California National Guard, by discharging their Commissioned and Non-Commissioned officers.
Doesn’t the insurrection act allow the US president to take control of the national guard, even without a governor’s consent?
Hence the reason Trump keeps calling protestors “insurrectionists.”
(Not that I agree with Trump’s bullshit)
I don’t understand how Newsom can’t just order the CA national guard to not follow unlawfully given orders
That would mean confronting Trump directly, and Newsom is a coward who doesn't really expect the Nat Guard to follow his orders over Trump's.
Send state troopers after the national guard. Nothing matters anymore. Form a california militia, fuck all. Send a message to the gangs that they won't prosecute crimes against the national guard because this is self-defense.
The national guard is the state's militia.
The California National Guard is militia from the state of California, but it is not the state's militia. The state also has the California State Guard, which is exclusively under the authority of the governor.
Many (Most?) states have their own dedicated militia, as well as National Guard units.
Not quite, I'm related to someone in my States guard and they focus more on humanitarian efforts and disaster response but they are trained as a militia and under the governor's command separate from the national guard
None of this is gonna happen.
Start emergency roadwork right outside ICE facilities.
"I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
If it's unlawful, you don't need to ask. Just tell them to go home.
He's giving Trump an off-ramp before escalation. Most politicians are better at politics than Trump is, they don't go straight to the nuclear option.
Maybe you should when the National Guard is illegally occupying your state? If not now, when?
Expecting Trump to play ball and use California as anything but a whipping boy is a pipe dream.
If not now, when?
After you give Trump a peaceful off-ramp, as I said.
You may be keen to jump straight into a full blown civil war but most people would rather see that all reasonable efforts to avoid it are taken first.
The command structure allows the president to issue those orders. The president's justification for issuing those orders is illegal; the orders themselves are not.
The command structure also constitutionally empowers Newsom to fire the commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the California National Guard, effectively disbanding their units.
I'm betting that California has some emergency provision allowing the governor to deputize these individuals into the California State Police.
I think Trump has done enough here to actually get himself convicted by the senate.
The one follows the other.
The president can not order the military to do peacekeeping operations on US soil without a justification to do so. If the justification to do so is illegal, then so is the act of ordering it.
That determination can only be authoritatively be made by the courts. Until the courts say otherwise, the president's order is presumed lawful, and the subordinate officers are compelled to obey it.
The order is one that the president is allowed to make in the specific circumstances described in the order. If the courts determine those circumstances are present, the order will have been determined to be lawful.
Newsom's authority is limited to the "appointment of officers". He can functionally disband the California National Guard, but he can't otherwise countermand the president's order.
"Muh states rights" -Republicans
Oh my gosh. We got him, guys.
As a Californian, I think our governor is such a douchebag.
Oh man. I needed that laugh.
based
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
