President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#28,851
#28,851
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump himself, has said that he has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Legislation passed after the Posse Comitatus Act requires the Insurrection Act to be invoked. That was clearly what I was talking about.

This is the part where you play dumb and split hairs as if you want to win some gotcha game, so you can feel some sense of pride.
Click to expand...
Asking bc I don't know. By simply having them involved in law enforcement acts isn't he "invoking" it no matter what he says? What does he have to do to "invoke" something?
 
#28,852
#28,852
volfanhill said:
Asking bc I don't know. By simply having them involved in law enforcement acts isn't he "invoking" it no matter what he says? What does he have to do to "invoke" something?
Click to expand...
Apparently, it's in some later legislation that he's unable to reference. .
 
Last edited:
#28,853
#28,853
Orange_Crush said:
Apparently, it's in some later legislation that he's unable to reference. Ignoring the fact that "the Insurrection Act" is just a colloquial name for several laws that were encoded in Article 10 powers with all of the other Article 10 powers.
Click to expand...

I can hear the google humming with activity from here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#28,859
#28,859
Orangeburst said:
I can hear the google humming with activity from here.
Click to expand...
That would be a good thing, methinks. Though, I have done all of the work for him.

Nothing requires the president to "invoke" anything. The Insurrection Act has been codified as sections 251-255 in Article 10, listing the situations in which the President can deploy the military domestically. They are not something to be turned on or activated. They are his codified, statutory powers.

Of note, section 252 reads:


Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Click to expand...

This section is most pertinent to the current situation, and in my opinion aligns well with its intent.

Interestingly, this section in particular has received some criticism for its vagueness, as well as it putting the decision to do so solely on the President's considerations (i.e. opinion). This section of "the" Insurrection Act literally states that WHENEVER the President CONSIDERS... he can deploy US military domestically for law enforcement.

Not "after" he's made a public legal declaration or invocation.

Not when he's done so at a time, and in a way, and in such situations that @BowlBrother85 agrees.

WHENEVER the President's opinion is 'that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce'...

Now, I don't like the verbiage of that law. It is too vague IMHO, and it puts too much power on the President's opinion with little safeguard. But that's just the thing, the parts of it that I dislike are the exact parts that make @BowlBrother85's outbursts per Trump so laughable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz and Orangeburst
#28,860
#28,860
Orange_Crush said:
That would be a good thing, methinks. Though, I have done all of the work for him.

Nothing requires the president to "invoke" anything. The Insurrection Act has been codified as sections 251-255 in Article 10, listing the situations in which the President can deploy the military domestically. They are not something to be turned on or activated. They are his codified, statutory powers.

Of note, section 252 reads:




This section is most pertinent to the current situation, and in my opinion aligns well with its intent.

Interestingly, this section in particular has received some criticism for its vagueness, as well as it putting the decision to do so solely on the President's considerations (i.e. opinion). This section of "the" Insurrection Act literally states that WHENEVER the President CONSIDERS... he can deploy US military domestically for law enforcement.

Not "after" he's made a public legal declaration or invocation.

Not when he's done so at a time, and in a way, and in such situations that @BowlBrother85 agrees.

WHENEVER the President's opinion is 'that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce'...

Now, I don't like the verbiage of that law. It is too vague IMHO, and it puts too much power on the President's opinion with little safeguard. But that's just the thing, the parts of it that I dislike are the exact parts that make @BowlBrother85's outbursts per Trump so laughable.
Click to expand...
You are a joke .... Yes, the President is supposed to invoke the Insurrection Act before deploying the military for law enforcement purposes on American soil. However, the legality of it, is not even my main point. It's what you are fixated with and want to talk about. The mission of the United States Marine Corps is not to enforce domestic laws and maintain order on American soil. Trump's use of them in L.A. is a misuse of them and marks an abuse of power. You are a Trump fanatic who would defend him for anything, as your cult leader.
 
#28,862
#28,862
BowlBrother85 said:
You are a joke .... Yes, the President is supposed to invoke the Insurrection Act before deploying the military for law enforcement purposes on American soil. However, the legality of it, is not even my main point. It's what you are fixated with and want to talk about. The mission of the United States Marine Corps is not to enforce domestic laws and maintain order on American soil. Trump's use of them in L.A. is a misuse of them and marks an abuse of power. You are a Trump fanatic who would defend him for anything, as your cult leader.
Click to expand...
Your back peddling, noted...

You've tried to invalidate trump's use of marines in LA by claiming that he has to "invoke" "the" Insurrection Act. I've repeatedly asked you to support that claim. Your only response has been insults. Please support the claim that Trump's usage of the Marines in this situation is invalid because he somehow has to "invoke" something. A link to the legislation you've claimed will suffice.

Once we've dealt with that claimed reason to invalidate Trump's usage of the Marines, we can move on to your other issues. (Preview: Their mission is defined in part by Article 10, which I've quoted repeatedly.)
 
#28,863
#28,863
Orange_Crush said:
That would be a good thing, methinks. Though, I have done all of the work for him.

Nothing requires the president to "invoke" anything. The Insurrection Act has been codified as sections 251-255 in Article 10, listing the situations in which the President can deploy the military domestically. They are not something to be turned on or activated. They are his codified, statutory powers.

Of note, section 252 reads:




This section is most pertinent to the current situation, and in my opinion aligns well with its intent.

Interestingly, this section in particular has received some criticism for its vagueness, as well as it putting the decision to do so solely on the President's considerations (i.e. opinion). This section of "the" Insurrection Act literally states that WHENEVER the President CONSIDERS... he can deploy US military domestically for law enforcement.

Not "after" he's made a public legal declaration or invocation.

Not when he's done so at a time, and in a way, and in such situations that @BowlBrother85 agrees.

WHENEVER the President's opinion is 'that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce'...

Now, I don't like the verbiage of that law. It is too vague IMHO, and it puts too much power on the President's opinion with little safeguard. But that's just the thing, the parts of it that I dislike are the exact parts that make @BowlBrother85's outbursts per Trump so laughable.
Click to expand...
This article sheds more light on what I'm talking about. Even speaking of the legality, what Trump is doing is murky :

www.pbs.org

What U.S. law says about Trump's deployment of active duty troops to Los Angeles

The standard to dispatch the military to a state is not simply in the eye of the beholder. There are limited legal circumstances in which a president is supposed to deploy the military domestically.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
 
#28,864
#28,864
Orange_Crush said:
Your back peddling, noted...

You've tried to invalidate trump's use of marines in LA by claiming that he has to "invoke" "the" Insurrection Act. I've repeatedly asked you to support that claim. Your only response has been insults. Please support the claim that Trump's usage of the Marines in this situation is invalid because he somehow has to "invoke" something. A link to the legislation you've claimed will suffice.

Once we've dealt with that claimed reason to invalidate Trump's usage of the Marines, we can move on to your other issues. (Preview: Their mission is defined in part by Article 10, which I've quoted repeatedly.)
Click to expand...
I'm not backpedaling. The legality was never my focus. It is yours. However ... read the article linked in post #28,863 up above. It is murky as hell and needs to be more decisively defined by the courts.
 
#28,866
#28,866
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm not backpedaling. The legality was never my focus. It is yours. However ... read the article linked in post #28,863 up above. It is murky as hell and needs to be more decisively defined by the courts.
Click to expand...
Well that's not Trumps fault. I think outside of defending federal property this is nonsense. Challenge his ass in court and quit biatching that he hasn't "invoked" it. He has.

You've spent pages biatching about Trump and you just realized your anger is misplaced I hope
 
#28,867
#28,867
BowlBrother85 said:
This article sheds more light on what I'm talking about. Even speaking of the legality, what Trump is doing is murky :

www.pbs.org

What U.S. law says about Trump's deployment of active duty troops to Los Angeles

The standard to dispatch the military to a state is not simply in the eye of the beholder. There are limited legal circumstances in which a president is supposed to deploy the military domestically.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
The article is wrong according to the laws I have quoted. It's little more than people stating their discomfort about what Trump has done. It's also wrong by claiming that "the Marines" are just trained to kill in combat, as I have posted links to the fact that the division of Marines sent specializes in law enforcement, and assurances that they received special training on domestic activities before deployment.

and, according to the article 10 section I've repeatedly posted, trump is absolutely correct as quoted in the article:

“The bar is what I think it is. I mean, if we see danger to our country and to our citizens, uh, we’ll be very, very strong in terms of law and order.”
Click to expand...

10 U.S. Code § 252 - Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority​

prev | next
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Click to expand...

Post the link to the legislation that you repeatedly claimed invalidates Trump's use of the Marines--specifically stating that he must "invoke" "the" Insurrection Act. Or just admit that you have been loudly parroting your inferences from an article that never actually dealt with the issues you've been harping about.

Thank you in advance.
 
#28,868
#28,868
BowlBrother85 said:
Bull $hit. LOL. "in part."
Click to expand...
That's about as forceful as the rest of your posts on the subject.

So, you're saying that the military's mission isn't partly defined as domestic law enforcement when the law explicitly makes it their mission when their Commander in Chief calls them to do it?
 
#28,869
#28,869
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm not backpedaling. The legality was never my focus. It is yours. However ... read the article linked in post #28,863 up above. It is murky as hell and needs to be more decisively defined by the courts.
Click to expand...
You literally said that Trump's use of the military is invalidated by the fact that he never "invoked" "the" Insurrection act. I've repeatedly quoted your asinine posts on the subject.

It's back peddling. The only reason I'm continually hammering you about it is because you acted like a condescending, insulting, ***hole about it while being remarkably wrong and uninformed on the matter. Stop your dancing. Admit it. You'll move on and survive.
 
#28,871
#28,871
Orange_Crush said:
You literally said that Trump's use of the military is invalidated by the fact that he never "invoked" "the" Insurrection act. I've repeatedly quoted your asinine posts on the subject.

It's back peddling. The only reason I'm continually hammering you about it is because you acted like a condescending, insulting, ***hole about it while being remarkably wrong and uninformed on the matter. Stop your dancing. Admit it. You'll move on and survive.
Click to expand...
From the very beginning, I said that there were ways around the Posse Comitatus Act, and did not make legality an issue. My exact words were "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should," Trump's deployment of Marines in L.A. was overkill and a misuse of them, which I have said repeatedly. I have said nothing which was misinformation. Your posts are redundant and boring .... You would lick trump's boots over any matter and have proven that here. The Marines should not be used for domestic law enforcement. PERIOD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#28,872
#28,872
BowlBrother85 said:
From the very beginning, I said that there were ways around the Posse Comitatus Act, and did not make legality an issue. My exact words were "just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should," Trump's deployment of Marines in L.A. was overkill and a misuse of them, which I have said repeatedly. I have said nothing which was misinformation. Your posts are redundant and boring .... You would lick trump's boots over any matter and have proven that here. The Marines should not be used for domestic law enforcement. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Which later law required the president to "invoke" "the" Insurrection Act? If you will state the code numbers, I will look them up and quote/link them here for the board.
 
#28,873
#28,873
Orange_Crush said:
I've posted the full text of the PC Act, and your claims are nowhere to be seen in it, Einstein. You then claimed it was a later law, which you still haven't linked to or quoted.
Click to expand...
You are going in circles. LOL.

The Posse Comitatus Act does bar federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law.
 
#28,874
#28,874
BowlBrother85 said:
You are going in circles. LOL.

The Posse Comitatus Act does bar federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law.
Click to expand...
You said it makes demand that the President "invoke" "the" Insurrection Act. I posted the full text. Can you point that out for us?

Or, having moved on to "later" laws that mandated such, please give us the relevant information so that I can quote/link the appropriate sections for the board. Then I and we will not be so ignorant and stupid, compared to your vast wealth of knowledge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OL SMOKEY
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top