Trump deploys National Guard as Los Angeles protests against immigration agents | Hacker News Reader

Trump deploys National Guard as Los Angeles protests against immigration agents

rnz.co.nz

114 pointscolinprince54 comments

Open articleView on HN

The national guards, protests and a summer. That does remind me

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Almost the same time of the year.

One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS.

Is this the case here?

> One function of the National Guard is to quell civil unrest at the behest of the POTUS

Only "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1]. Otherwise, the National Guard is banned from domestic law enforcment at the command of the President [2].

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insu...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_%28United_State...

The Brennan Centre site doesn't show the complete text. Dare I say Trump feels the below warrants the NG? I guess it could be argued that the civil unrest falls within the below reference?

§253. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...

> Trump feels the below warrants the NG?

Oh, totally. I’d even argue that interpretation is correct. How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me, but I guess this is a good stress test.

> How we forgot to repeal this law while in power is beyond me

It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations. Jon Stewart has made that point that because of this, most of what Trump has been doing is perfectly legal.

> It's pretty clear that the laws are full of "extraordinary" powers for use in "extraordinary" situations

When people talk about Congress ceding its power to the executive, this is what they're describing. It's a modern phenomenon, a product of lazy legislating.

We need a generation of lawmakers to rewrite decades of statute to be clear about what the federal government has the power to do, and then have the discipline to end it there. No extraordinary powers. The Constitution already extraordinarily empowers the President in military emergencies. Other emergencies can be dealt by an emergency session of the Congress. (There is no reason the President should have emergency tariff powers, for instance.)

It was Congress who voted to change the definition of a calendar day so that the President's temporary emergency powers could last indefinitely. They aren't lazy, they're complicit.

So it's for the next step in the Project 2025 plan: use the protests as an excuse to give the president even more power and take another step towards dictatorship.

Can you link me to the part of Project 2025 that says that? Here's the full text to make it simple:

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...

The National Guard is managed by states, so states can use the National Guard to enforce state laws [1]. However, when the president calls on National Guard members, the members become part of the Army and Air Force [2]. Trump is violating the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits anyone from using the Army or Air Force for law enforcement [3][4]. Exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act include authorization from Congress and the Insurrection Act (which Trump has not invoked yet) [3][4].

[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/poss...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)

[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385

[4] https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-national-guard-in-l...

> Trump is violating the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits anyone from using the Army or Air Force for law enforcement

... It only prohibits this veing done without specific statutory authority. In addition to provisions of the Insurrection Act, specific statutory authority for Presidential use of the National Guard specifically for, among other purpose, executing the laws of the United States is found in 10 USC § 12406 regarding federalizing the Guard [0], which is the basis cited for the recent mobilization. So, the argument that it is violating Posse Comitatus requires arguing as well that the invocation of § 12406 is invalid. There is an argument for that, as § 12406 explicitly requires orders for its purposes shall be issued through the Governors of the states involved, so the argument is that, by bypassing the Governor, Trump is acting outside of the cited statutory authority of § 12406, and therefore also violating Posse Comitatus.

The problem with that technical argument is that it probably achieves nothing in practice even if it works, as the conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act encompass those for § 12406, allow federalizing any of the universal militia (including the Guard) and not just the Guard, and do not require orders through the Governor of the State [1], so if there were found to a legal issue, a new order with the same effect founded in 10 USC § 253 instead of 10 USC § 12406 could immediately be issued.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406

[1] compare 10 USC §§ 252-253 [2][3] to § 12406 [0]

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/252

[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253

These national guard are sworn to protect against foreign and domestic enemies. ICE and CBP have continually conspired to violate the constitution of the united states, and the orders of the courts. Therefore the action the officers and guard must take is to arrest ICE and let the prosecutor charge them with depravation of rights under color of law.

Perhaps, but unfortunately far too many of the guardsmen see their fellow citizens that have the audacity to disagree with them as domestic enemies. As far as they're concerned, if you don't bend the knee and kiss the jackboot, you're the enemy.

That would require some exceptionally independent thinking on the part of Guard commanders.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/jck93oZ4xu

Maybe I’m just lucky, but I have no idea how an ICE agent looks themselves in the face. Like is money everything? I don’t even want to blame the ICE agents, I think we made such a horrendous economic system that people will do any job to pay the rent. Prostitutes do more honest work.

So, yeah, the “national guard” either figure out morality on the spot, or not.

Anyone that works for Palantir, fuck you. They are building a database.

The answer is simple, but uncomfortable. Many of them are radicalized white supremacists who relish doing this kind of stuff, especially now that they have institutional support.

The USA should break up ICE. ERO (Trumps SS) should be stay in ice, the name is simply burned and HSI should be indipendent. HSI is focused on actual crimes committed against people, but bundled with ERO makes even them uncormfotable at least since they need trust from the community that is broken by ERO.

Most of the new ICE agents are just militia members in government clothing. Now they get paid to do what they've been doing before.

Fun fact, most every adult male citizen under the age of 45 is militia by statute.

Is a foreign person illegally residing in the country not a more obvious "enemy" than an internal institution acting unconstitutionally?

Very obviously not? I'm kind of at a loss for words that someone could even make this argument.

You're essentially saying you expect criminals to clear a higher bar than cops.

Its not an argument, its a question. I assumed following orders against illegal aliens was a more obvious course of acron for a guardsmen than mutiny when the guys giving the orders dont follow the contitution.

Well, illegals are busy throwing rocks, explosives and burning cars of federal agents. The LA police chief himself has said that the rioting and violence has gotten out of control. That the violence he has seen has been disgusting. That everyone doing the violence has masks on and are coming from several places.

He also said that "Federal officials have their mission...they have every right to do that"

So, it looks like the officials in charge don't share your extraordinary delusions.

Foreign people do not have a constitutional right to be here and the federal government is obligated by the constitution to protect the states from invasion. That's almost the entire point of the thing. Not doing this would be a violation of the constitution.

If you think there's an issue with this the correct (both moral and practical) thing to do would be to campaign for secession.

There is a constitutional way to remove people, and an unconstitutional way. When the unconstitutional way is intentionally chosen, the agency doing it is an enemy of the USA and we don't have due process to ensure individual rights are protected.

The 'entire point' of the thing of the government is to protect the rights of individuals in our borders, and all else falls downstream from that.

As for secession, I agree the states should have that right, however the civil war and subsequent litigation established that states have no right to secession.

That's absurd. If an invading force shows up they have no constitutional rights to hearings etc and as foreigners no they are not obligated to anything from us under the constitution (otherwise we'd be an international economic zone like the EU, not a country.)

You're essentially appealing to the natural right to self defense. I'll grant you the constitution isn't a suicide pact -- if people are in imminent danger of death or disability then they or anyone else has a natural right to swiftly and severely deal with the transgressor. Any society that doesn't will perish, this supersedes all laws written by man.

However, after that happens there will be judgement. And the judgement is finding that quite often these renditions without process were not so justified. If you are going to act without process, you damn well better be right, and if you are not you should be judged as if you acted violently lawlessly.

You can judge all you'd like, the rest of us actually have to live somewhere.

Again if you think there's a moral problem you should campaign for secession (the rest of the country absolutely does not share your concern.)

> to protect the states from invasion.

There is no invasion by any meaningful definition of the term.

> to protect the states from invasion

What on earth do you think an “invasion” is?

> These national guard are sworn to protect against foreign and domestic enemies.

Yeah and we're talking about foreign and domestic enemies here. People burning down cars, destroying property and attacking the police, all while waving Mexican and Palestinian flags are very much foreign enemies, or at least foreign-supporting enemies.

Nothing wrong with wavin palestinian or mexican flag tho

>People burning down cars, destroying property

Didn't the people that founded this country do a bunch of property destruction in the lead-up to the creation of this country?

So you think we should have a violent revolution?

Also they did that because they didn't have representation.

I have a feeling that the people that are in these protests feel that they don't have representation, either.

Now do the kidnappers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com