|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On July 23 2020 00:54 ParExample wrote:
Je ne fais pas d'ordinateurs, mais je crois que vous ne pouvez pas tenir un service public comme celui-ci et continuer à avoir une philosophie d'expression restreinte.
The right of speech is not the same as freedom of speech.
|
On July 22 2020 15:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2020 14:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2020 09:45 Nevuk wrote:
Obvious answer is the national guard. There isn't any other group capable of it with anything close to the legal right.
We don't really know who these people are in the first place - federal government is a good guess, but for all we know it is the proud boys.
But if the guess is correct, national guard being deployed against the feds would be a giant constitutional crisis. BuT sTaTeS' rIgHtS! What a fucking joke this is. States rights is precisely why states should demand identification, notice of rights, access to a lawyer, and members of their police overseeing the process. If you routinely denigrate state rights, then stand the fuck aside when the feds intrude on them to do something involving a federal courthouse. You’re no help at all, go pretend you’ll get the president you want every election until you die.
Added an edit to my post.
The point is that the people that throw out "states rights" are very conspicuously silent during all of this.
|
On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this?
Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)?
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
|
On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president.
|
On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president.
Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play.
|
On July 23 2020 07:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2020 15:06 Danglars wrote:On July 22 2020 14:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2020 09:45 Nevuk wrote:
Obvious answer is the national guard. There isn't any other group capable of it with anything close to the legal right.
We don't really know who these people are in the first place - federal government is a good guess, but for all we know it is the proud boys.
But if the guess is correct, national guard being deployed against the feds would be a giant constitutional crisis. BuT sTaTeS' rIgHtS! What a fucking joke this is. States rights is precisely why states should demand identification, notice of rights, access to a lawyer, and members of their police overseeing the process. If you routinely denigrate state rights, then stand the fuck aside when the feds intrude on them to do something involving a federal courthouse. You’re no help at all, go pretend you’ll get the president you want every election until you die. Added an edit to my post. The point is that the people that throw out "states rights" are very conspicuously silent during all of this.
We probably listen to different circles, but I heard widespread conservative condemnation. They also aren’t too pleased with the inaction of Portland PD regarding attempted firebombing, blocking of fire exits, and destruction/tagging of federal courthouses by Antifa and related groups. But that’s cause for a legitimate federal response, as I’ve already posted beforehand.
|
On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play.
The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard.
|
On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard.
The wiki sums it up decently.
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.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent
en.wikipedia.org
|
Am I right in saying that in some states if unidentified people jumped out of an unmarked van and tried to kidnap you you would be within your rights to shoot them in self defence?
|
On July 23 2020 08:26 Jockmcplop wrote:
Am I right in saying that in some states if unidentified people jumped out of an unmarked van and tried to kidnap you you would be within your rights to shoot them in self defence?
Realistically: Yes.
In America: Not if it's found out they were officers after the fact.
|
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
|
On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. Show nested quote +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.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org
Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul:
the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection
More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities.
On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial.
|
|
|
On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Kenneth Walker's charges being dismissed by the judge is probably the closest/most recent example blurring the two.
A bizarre scenario where an innocent sleeping woman was killed in her bed in her home by police, the man with her shot at police and was arrested, and no crimes have apparently been committed.
|
On July 23 2020 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Kenneth Walker's charges being dismissed by the judge is probably the closest/most recent example blurring the two. A bizarre scenario where an innocent sleeping woman was killed in her bed in her home by police, the man with her shot at police and was arrested, and no crimes have apparently been committed.
and he only spent two weeks in jail. Lucky him.
|
On July 23 2020 08:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. 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.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul: Show nested quote +the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities. Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial.
I'm not suggesting people start shooting at these guys, i'm just curious about what is/is not legal.
|
On July 23 2020 08:52 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 08:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. 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.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul: the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities. On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial. I'm not suggesting people start shooting at these guys, i'm just curious about what is/is not legal.
Do you have an alternative suggestion to self-defense? I personally think Kwame Ture was right about the American conscience and pacifism.
|
Understand that there is no explicit order currently credited to Trump, and only he can override with regards to the national guard by any interpretation. Also consider that there's pretty equal consideration as to who their CINC is - if one of them is asking them to do something blatantly unconstitutional, they are supposed to ignore the order. It also isn't like the police - national guards people are from that state and tend to be pretty average for the area on their beliefs, and don't view themselves as a separate class of people. Basically, I don't think they could really round up groups of national guards more loyal to Trump than the state without cooperation from the governor (and may not be able to, period).
We have started to get some justifications from some DHS people and they're really bad. They amount to preventative arrest for standing near someone who committed a crime. Guilty by association and preventative arrest were found unconstitutional in the 70s by the SC on 6-3 margins, and reaffirmed 9-0 in the 80s. They also tried calling detaining people not an arrest.
Here is an article about it:
https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/two-dhs-officials-apparently-just-admitted-their-troops-have-been-violating-the-constitution
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
