What’s Trump’s plan for the looting and rioting if he wins?
He will demand 50% of the take as a reward for his genius thinking
And first dibs on any Solid Gold Toilets found.
Have a cite for that?
That is way out of the understanding being taught by US Army North (the component command subordinate to US Northern Command) as recently as 2014. I had to complete that training to assist in the training and certification of NORTHCOM’s ready response force in case of chemical, biologial, or nuclear attacks inside the US. That legal change would massively affect the framework for military response in the US.
I have not not seen anything announcing that big a change in the last six years. I have also not seen any significant differences in the way that NORTHCOM has been responding or the ways that state governors have been using their National Guard forces since that exercise or my retirement a few month later. The kind of massive legal change you seem to suggest should show up in operations.
Trump had this to say to the mayor of Portland:
"He would like to blame me and the federal government for going in, but he hasn’t seen anything yet.”
That sounds like a threat to me and if he wins, he’ll have nothing to lose if he goes all out on any protest.
I dispute the accuracy of this assertion.
See, I thought I had just read this morning that the governors command the National Guard, despite the word “national” being part of their name.
Assuming DrDeth does not come back with a cite that is outside my understanding… the answer is the president and governor both control the National Guard. It depends on status. Your understanding skips a lot of very important nuance.
As a component of the military the National Guard is usually described as dual status. The are a state force subject to call up by the governor for state missions. They also have a federal status and are subject to being federalized by the president whether the governor likes it or not.
For something like conducting crowd and riot control or responding to a natural disaster, the governor has full authority to call up the Guard. There is no need to ask the president. The governor can legally assign the Guard chain of command tasks that would violate Posse Comitatus. They state pays for the operation and the governor operates as Commander in Chief of the state militia for the operation.
Because of that dual status, the president can also federalize those troops. At that point the role of Commander in Chief transitions to the president. Since they are now operating as federal troops, the Posse Comitatus limitations on federal troops apply. Their are exceptions to Posse Comitatus written into law under the Insurrection Act. There is no legally special reason to use the Guard in that case. They cannot legally do anything that Reserve and Active Component troops cant do.
There is a special in between status that can blur the lines. Those are Title 32 orders. The federal government can pay for certain kinds of operations if the governor chooses to use their state troops. Sometimes that is the federal government asking. An example is putting National Guardsmen in airports after 9-11. Sometimes that is the state asking the federal government to pay for specific missions of federal interest. The use of Guardsmen for COVID-19 response efforts is an example. The governor retains authority over the troops and mission under Title 32. Since they are not operating as federal troops, Posse Comitatus does not apply. The federal government can withdraw funding. Governors can also change their mind, stop taking the money and choose to send their troops home; we saw some of that in the latest iteration of the border security mission. Title 32 is a state mission just with federal funds.
Then there is the relevant but obscure piece about who owns the equipment. The National Guard is provided with federally owned equipment. The state did not own the tanks, the enlisted troops uniforms, or any of the other stuff that made my second command a tank company. I was signed for all of the federal property on one document. That equipment goes with a unit when federalized. There was also broad authority for the state to use it for state missions. I was also signed for state owned equipment on a separate document. Stuff like batons, face shields, and CS dispensers were on that document of state property. There was no authority for me to take that equipment with me into a federal status. Governors could absolutely play hardball on that point. They do not have to give up state equipment if they do not support the mission.
So in short at the president controls only the portions of the National Guard which he has ordered federalized. That has not happened yet for the case under discussion here…
But, hey, it’s not like the current occupant of the Oval Office has been mistaken before on what a president is legally permitted to do.
In that vein, how do you view Bump’s quote:
So: can federalized state guards be used as police inside the US at the president’s (CinC since they’re federalized) direction? What are the limits on using federalized Guard troops within the US?
Trump’s plan for looting involves his family and overseas bank accounts. He’ll make Marco’s look like a girl scout if he’s re-elected.
wikipedia:National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia
which I have cited before:
The United States National Guard is part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force. It is a military reserve force composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors.[5][6]
The bill was never repealed.
Using the Border patrol and Fde prison guards was a stretch, I am sure trump wont blink at this.
Bump’s quote is less detailed but is a good summary of what I posted.
All federal troops can be used inside the US for policing functions like crowd and riot control. That includes federalized National Guard troops. The Insurrection Act of 1807 lays out the legal requirements for the usage of federal troops.
The same as the limits on using the 82nd Airborne to perform the same tasks. Posse Comitatus lays out the general rule that federal forces cannot be used to enforce domestic law. The Insurrection Act lays out the exceptions.
Okay so there has not been a big change. There does seem to be some misunderstanding in how you are applying what is in your cites.
Sure. The Army has three total components. Two of them are reserve components - the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. The Air Force has the same structure. They are administered separately, fall under different chains of command, and in many states have different codes of military justice. (All USAR units fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. States get to write their own code for state troops on state duty. Some choose UCMJ but mine did not.) The National Guard even has a designated seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Army and Air Force Reserves have to settle for being represented by their respective service branch Chief of Staff.
The National Guard consists of two of the reserve components of the US military. Saying it is part of the “Army reserve” is wildly misleading. There is still a separate and distinct US Army Reserve that is single status. You seem to have been mislead by the similarity.
QFT.
That was not in and of itself a huge change from the common understanding of presidential power. It was more laying that power out clearly in law. Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard out from under the governor during the desegregation of Little Rock school.
Nothing about that speaks to the governor asking for permission to use the Guard in a state status. Giving the president power to federalize the Guard for missions inside the US is also not the same as saying they are always federalized. I am not seeing any support for either of those notions.
If you interpretation of that pretty minor change in the law was accurate huge swaths of governors have been accomplices to Bush, Obama, and Trump violating Posse Comitatus repeatedly and with impunity. There are violations ongoing where governors have called up their National Guard to perform policing functions while dealing with ongoing riots. The lawyers behind some of the most brutal online courses I took during my time in the Army also disagree with your interpretation.
warning I didna read all of this thread.
To answer the OP, he’s gonna fo what’s he’s already doing. Nothing.
What did Eisenhower do with the Arkansas National Guard during the integration of Central High in Little Rock? I doubt that Governor Faubus would have willingly given up control.
Exactly. He’s making noise now because he thinks it helps his election chances After the election he will return to not giving a shit.
Not the entire bill, but the NDAA for 2008 struck most of the sections of the 2006 act that were pertinent, according to your cite under “Amendment to Section 1076 of the law”.
And at any rate, they’ve retained the power to federalize the NG since at least 1962 when Kennedy federalized the Alabama NG and used it to force George Wallace to admit black students to the University of Alabama. I’m sure that federalization was not approved by Wallace.
The meat of the argument will be in how the law is interpreted. The wording is intended to say that if the state can’t or refuses to enforce the laws of the land, or denies some class their rights, then the President can use the NG to enforce those laws.
That’s why Trump was using some very specific language back in the George Floyd protests - he was trying to frame it like the states were failing in their duty to protect their citizens, etc… and justify federalizing the national guard.
er… 1963, not 1962.