He doesn’t have legal authority to do that. The Governors do. Trump can mobilize the Guard. They would then be federal troops and fall under Posse Commitatus like active and reserve troops.
There is a loophole. The federal government can offer funding to the state(s) to cover the costs related to a Gubernatorial call to state active duty. That was the method used to put National Guard troops in airports following 9/11. That still takes the Governor being on board with the mission. The state chain of command is then responsible for the mission as well.
One day maybe we’ll live in a society where a person can say they don’t want criminals causing violence and mayhem without someone assuming that they only want to stop non whites from doing so. I don’t particularly care the color of the persons skin who is breaking windows and causing a ruckus.
Sorry to be so long answering, I had to leave soon after posting that and just returned.
But to answer your point, I’m not sure that gratuitous is the right word here. How does one deny an assertion gratuitously (or out of the blue, so to speak; he would by necessity be making a statement pertinent to a subject already in play).
But be that as it may, yes, a person may challenge or choose not to believe an assertion such as the reasons for three strikes laws being self-evident, but given that the reasons for them are indeed self-evident and any reasonable person knows this, the challenger opens himself to being tasked with providing a plausible alternative explanation, as k9bfriender was.
Ordinarily I would take k9bfriender’s resulting silence as tacit admission that I was right. But he’s also been silent with regard to the cite I provided as to skyrocketing crime rates in the wake of the counterculture revolution which proved beyond a doubt that my assertion there was correct. So maybe he’s just a guy who likes to throw out challenges with no intention of responding whether the point is proven or not.
Nope, you are just forgetful. We had this conversation many times before and it is clear that what others did learn is that you ignore history; and the big picture to fall into the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and the one were you also ignore that the counter culture you are so fond of blaming, was out of the picture before more crime came in the 80’s. You are still making the mistake of making the counter culture = civil rights movement.
You mean like Trump in 2012 who told everybody to protest because he thought (wrongly) that Obama had lost the popular vote?
Trump demonstrated that he did not grow up out of that embarrassment as even days before the election of today he told everybody that the contest was going to be rigged. As it turned out Clinton won the popular vote by close to 2 million votes.
I think the system is flawed (look at the tht thread I started today) so they should work at improving it (meaning popular vote winner should be the prez. in future)…but for this time, Trump has won
If they continue, Trump might be “provoked” into, er, waiting them out - it worked with Occupy Wall Street.
Personally, I don’t think Trump would have any real problem with the protests, except for one thing; he might start believing that they are being organized by the #NotMyPresident movement. Of course, just saying #NotMyPresident isn’t really a problem; it’s the possibility that it escalates into something like #NotMyPresident#NotYourTaxes that worries some people.
Missing the point, as per Trump people should protest because indeed more people did vote for the other person, but protest peacefully* and they should get more involved in organizations that will keep an eye on the powerful in these dark days that are coming.
*It has to be noticed that most protests have been peaceful, but as usual the nuts that resort to violence get most of the press, distorting what most people are doing.
A new (three hours old) article from Rolling Stone gives a good rundown of current protests and of the way they’re being experienced by those involved and interpreted by those observing. A brief excerpt:
There’s a strong tendency in humans to adapt; it’s a strength in many ways but it can also work against our interests. That tendency curdles into complacency too easily. Do we have to simply accept what those in power do? Not always.
I’d be leery of asserting that it would convince most fair minded observers unless they aren’t very well informed about governance and international relations. Allow me to quote the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 from their page answering the question"What is the Rule of Law."
"… if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law…”
Sure some might currently be trying to spin their intents to oppress by cloaking it in the existing terminology. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s long used, and long understood, phrase that isn’t just code for we want to oppress people.
California and New York don’t quite have a majority of the population. If they did, and you could get everyone in those states to agree, then, yes, they should run those things which are within the proper scope of democratic governance.
We may be posting at cross purposes. What I was claiming was that some on the right have begun misusing “rule of law” as if it were a synonym for “law and order” (itself a coded way of saying ‘keep the non-whites in line’). Of course they are quite incorrect in believing, as they apparently do, that “rule of law” means the same thing as “law and order,” as your citation demonstrates.
But usage is sometimes sadly immune to facts. If enough people misuse the phrase “rule of law” then its actual meaning could be lost. As a counter-measure, those of us hearing it misused in conversation might choose to comment on the issue.
