America's Reichstag fire??? (ICE, Nat’l Guard & Military in LA)

nycfan said:
IMG_7380.jpeg

The Ninth Circuit did NOT rule on the merits last night. It issued an Administrative stay pending appeal. Hearing is June 17.
Click to expand...
I hate administrative stays in these cases. There's nothing to consider. It is plainly unconstitutional for the president to use the military to control the population with unchecked power. Every middle schooler knows that. It's not a close question, because of all the goals of the constitution, the most fundamental was no kings. No dictators. Checks and balances (which the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten somehow).
 


“… And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

… The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

… While ICE “was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,” it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military’s help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added.

“The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.

… The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace….”
 
nycfan said:


“… And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

… The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

… While ICE “was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,” it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military’s help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added.

“The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.

… The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace….”
Click to expand...

“… But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson’s move than it does with President Millard Fillmore’s actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north.

Trump’s arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the “take care” clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military’s repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War.

“Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act,” the professor said.

Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called “unitary executive theory,” a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch.

… Some experts point out that Judge Breyer’s order is limited only to California, which means that until it’s fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere.

… “It’s a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn’t matter,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] particularly cares that he’s doing something illegal.”“

www.latimes.com

Trump's case for sending troops to help ICE involves precedent from Fugitive Slave Act

Deep-cut case law and 19th century constitutional interpretation underpin the Trump administration argument for deploying troops to Los Angeles.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
 
nycfan said:
… “It’s a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn’t matter,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] particularly cares that he’s doing something illegal.”“
Click to expand...
This was one of the reasons I retired from teaching. I felt I no longer could tell the truth and do my job. Kids aren't paying $40K a year in tuition or whatever it is now to hear the professors say, "eh, the law doesn't really matter any more."
 
superrific said:
This was one of the reasons I retired from teaching. I felt I no longer could tell the truth and do my job. Kids aren't paying $40K a year in tuition or whatever it is now to hear the professors say, "eh, the law doesn't really matter any more."
Click to expand...
99.9999% of the law has nothing to do with Trump and there are millions of people trying to apply the law correctly every day in all sorts of ways.

If you want to talk about how judges or juries decide wrongly based on emotions and biases, rather than the text of the law, I could get behind that. But that has been true since the Middle Ages.
 
superrific said:
This was one of the reasons I retired from teaching. I felt I no longer could tell the truth and do my job. Kids aren't paying $40K a year in tuition or whatever it is now to hear the professors say, "eh, the law doesn't really matter any more."
Click to expand...

I often teach Education Classes or classes in which the students are considering becoming teachers. By far their greatest concern is "will I be permitted to tell the truth?"
 
Calheel said:
99.9999% of the law has nothing to do with Trump and there are millions of people trying to apply the law correctly every day in all sorts of ways.
Click to expand...
Don't try to lecture me about my own experience, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. How many law school courses have you taught?

Imagine yourself trying to teach Con Law or Admin Law in an age of Bruen and Trump v. United States and Shelby County and the multitude of catastrophes last year. How? How do you teach 1L law students that the law matters when it clearly does not to the US Supreme Court. It's not Trump per se that is the problem; it's the lawlessness of the Supreme Court. And if you think the problem with the Supreme Court is that they are deciding cases based on emotions, then you have less understanding of the world than I had thought.

And don't get me started on corporate law. That's not exactly Trump related, but the quality of Delaware corporate law has eroded substantially in recent years. It has certainly become a lot less fun to teach or think about. That's largely because Delaware is racing to the bottom along with Texas.
 
superrific said:
Don't try to lecture me about my own experience, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. How many law school courses have you taught?

Imagine yourself trying to teach Con Law or Admin Law in an age of Bruen and Trump v. United States and Shelby County and the multitude of catastrophes last year. How? How do you teach 1L law students that the law matters when it clearly does not to the US Supreme Court. It's not Trump per se that is the problem; it's the lawlessness of the Supreme Court. And if you think the problem with the Supreme Court is that they are deciding cases based on emotions, then you have less understanding of the world than I had thought.

And don't get me started on corporate law. That's not exactly Trump related, but the quality of Delaware corporate law has eroded substantially in recent years. It has certainly become a lot less fun to teach or think about. That's largely because Delaware is racing to the bottom along with Texas.
Click to expand...
Your particular specialties understandably color your view. The "law" is a lot more than bad Supreme Court decisions.
 
Calheel said:
Your particular specialties understandably color your view. The "law" is a lot more than bad Supreme Court decisions.
Click to expand...
Fine. Law matters, except apparently not in the most important cases. I don't want to teach that either. You've got to remember: law students are pretty fucking far from practicing lawyers. Supreme Court opinions form the vast majority of reading materials in federal law courses until perhaps 3L year.

I guarantee you I'm not the only person who came to find teaching law depressing and dishonest for precisely this reason. Maybe contracts has been unaffected. I didn't teach contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top