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

I do believe hsi order is on stay-by him-until 3pm Friday . Allowing both sides to submit anything else they wish
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top