Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SkyPilot
Kennedy and Eisenhower before him federalized the National Guard to enforce court orders. I know of no constitutional authority which permits the president of the United States to send in Armed Forces because he disputes the action of the state governor.

Lincoln acted in time of war under war powers authority. Likewise Wilson and Roosevelt.

Instead the president is the chief of the executive branch of government and he can invoke the powers of the Department of Justice to pursue constitutional rights of parishioners if he sees fit. But I know of no warrant for the president to send in the 101 airborne.


2 posted on 05/27/2020 3:27:09 AM PDT by nathanbedford (attack, repeat, attack! Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford

To protect the first amendment rights of the population?


4 posted on 05/27/2020 3:38:59 AM PDT by yldstrk (Bingo! We have a winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

My understanding is that Title 10 and Title 32 give the President the authority under homeland defense.


5 posted on 05/27/2020 3:41:43 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

No God, but at least you will have “muh Constitution.”


6 posted on 05/27/2020 4:03:39 AM PDT by TTFlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

I know of no constitutional authority which permits the president of the United States to send in Armed Forces because he disputes the action of the state governor.>>>>>>>>>>>

As far as I know there is none and we have The Posse Comitatus Act, United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152)

But that doesn’t mean that the Commander in Chief can’t make the order and have it happen.

Who is going to stop our military? But I assume the National Guard would be nationalized as you say.


7 posted on 05/27/2020 4:05:25 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama fascism:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

He can act to ensure that each state continues to function as a representative form of government and to ensure that the Constitution is not being violated by said states. He can absolutely emergently act to ensure that constitutional rights are being upheld. The courts could always make their rulings later.


18 posted on 05/27/2020 7:21:18 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson