President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#28,876
#28,876
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Insurrection Act of 1807, Dumb A$$, That has been established. You are thick as a redwood.

www.brennancenter.org

The Insurrection Act Explained

The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org

As the above article explains, it is dangerously vague and needs to be more specifically defined.
 
#28,877
#28,877
BowlBrother85 said:
The Insurrection Act of 1807, Dumb a$$, That has been established. You are thick as a redwood.

www.brennancenter.org

The Insurrection Act Explained

The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org

As the above article explains, it is dangerously vague and needs to be more specifically defined.
Click to expand...
You quoted the article I've been quoting, Einstein. From the article:

Although it is often referred to as the “Insurrection Act of 1807,” the law is actually an amalgamation of different statutes enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871. Today, these provisions occupy Sections 251 through 255 in Title 10 of the United States Code.
Click to expand...

I've posted the entire contents of every Section listed. Can you point me to the verbiage that says that the President has to "invoke" something for these powers to take effect? Otherwise, they're just Title 10 powers at his disposal, and according to section 252, at his singular discretion.

Also, hey a funny story. Look below, with special attention to the bold.

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...
 
#28,878
#28,878
Orange_Crush said:
You quoted the article I've been quoting, Einstein. From the article:



I've posted the entire contents of every Section listed. Can you point me to the verbiage that says that the President has to "invoke" something for these powers to take effect? Otherwise, they're just Title 10 powers at his disposal, and according to section 252, at his singular discretion.

Also, hey a funny story. Look below, with special attention to the bold.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does require the President to cite the act, if that is the exception to the Posse Comitatus Act being used.

However, that is not the law that Trump is using for this deployment of federal troops in Los Angeles.
 
#28,879
#28,879
BowlBrother85 said:
Yes, it does require the President to cite the act, if that is the exception to the Posse Comitatus Act being used.

However, that is not the law that Trump is using for this deployment of federal troops in Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
Please post the verbiage.

And I do believe Trump is using section 252, which even according to the article you linked to, is (in part) the Insurrection Act.

1749957517980.png
 
Last edited:
#28,880
#28,880
Orangeburst said:
very interesting..just the lauguage of invoke apparently only means:
Essentially, when someone "invokes" something in a legal context, they are drawing upon it as a basis for their actions or claims.
Click to expand...
It literally just means an appeal to authority. IOW, the president "invokes" the Insurrection Act merely by deploying the troops in accordance with one of the sections that gives him the legal authority to. To claim that Trump's use of Article 2, Section 252 is invalid because he didn't "invoke" the IA is a contradiction in terms, since deploying the troops is by definition invoking the IA.

1749958182755.png
 
#28,881
#28,881
Orange_Crush said:
It literally just means an appeal to authority. IOW, the president "invokes" the Insurrection Act merely by deploying the troops in accordance with one of the sections that gives him the legal authority to. To claim that Trump's use of Article 2, Section 252 is invalid because he didn't "invoke" the IA is a contradiction in terms, since deploying the troops is by definition invoking the IA.

View attachment 748913
Click to expand...
You need to get yourself a life. LOL.

Trump did need to specify which exception he is using .... and it's not the Insurrection Act. He has even said that much. You must be very bored. That is probably just your daily norm though, isn't it?
 
#28,883
#28,883
BowlBrother85 said:
You need to get yourself a life. LOL.

Trump did need to specify which exception he is using .... and it's not the Insurrection Act. He has even said that much. You must be very bored. That is probably just your daily norm though, isn't it?
Click to expand...
Please link to the section of the various laws you've claimed so far that mandate this. Thank you in advance.
 
#28,884
#28,884
Orange_Crush said:
Please link to the section of the various laws you've claimed so far that mandate this. Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...
www.brennancenter.org

Unpacking Trump’s Order Authorizing Domestic Deployment of the Military

The president's move represents an unprecedented, dangerous, and legally doubtful exercise of power.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org

In the order provided to deploy the troops, is where the President cites the legal authorities. In this case, Trump cited 10 U.S.C 12406, which unlike the Insurrection Act, does not authorize the deployment of active duty armed forces.
 
#28,887
#28,887
BowlBrother85 said:
www.brennancenter.org

Unpacking Trump’s Order Authorizing Domestic Deployment of the Military

The president's move represents an unprecedented, dangerous, and legally doubtful exercise of power.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org

In the order provided to deploy the troops, is where the President cites the legal authorities. In this case, Trump cited 10 U.S.C 12406, which unlike the Insurrection Act, does not authorize the deployment of active duty armed forces.
Click to expand...
That wasn't a link to the laws you claimed make such demands.

Your argument that he didn't "invoke" section 252 to call up the Marines hinges on it. If I am correct that the sections in question give him the enduring, statutory powers, then your hair splitting is all for nothing. He would have "invoked" it when he called the Marines into LA.

Timeline:

Trump federalizes the NG under one statute. "Hey, I haven't 'invoked' the IA but I reserve the right to when I see fit."
Next day: Sends Marines in for non-law-enforcement duties.
Some time in the future?: Trump switched Marines to LE duties, this 'invoking' the IA, also known as Title 10, section 252.

(And ftr, if they're just there to guard gov't property and not performing law enforcement duties at this time, I don't even think they need section 252.)

1749961158943.png
 
Last edited:
#28,888
#28,888
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#28,890
#28,890
Orange_Crush said:
That wasn't a link to the laws you claimed make such demands.

Your argument that he didn't "invoke" section 252 to call up the Marines hinges on it. If I am correct that the sections in question give him the enduring, statutory powers, then your hair splitting is all for nothing. He would have "invoked" it when he called the Marines into LA.

Timeline:

Trump federalizes the NG under one statute. "Hey, I haven't 'invoked' the IA but I reserve the right to when I see fit."
Next day: Sends Marines in for non-law-enforcement duties.
Some time in the future?: Trump switched Marines to LE duties, this 'invoking' the IA, also known as Title 10, section 252.

(And ftr, if they're just there to guard gov't property and not performing law enforcement duties at this time, I don't even think they need section 252.)

View attachment 748921
Click to expand...
You are the one splitting hairs and look like the fool that we can all see that you are.
 
#28,892
#28,892
BowlBrother85 said:
You are trying to normalize Trump's behavior with the "everybody does it," sentiment. It is nonsense. Trump's decision-making and impulsiveness are uniquely dangerous because he is the President of the United States, and he is of a mind to abuse his power, and use the armed forces as though they are his own private militia.

Trump's actions were both divisive and provocative .... just for the cause of political posturing.
Click to expand...
There is nothing he could do that would garner one iota of support from the left. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Yet you accuse him of divisiveness. I guess that divisiveness will stop when he ceases to exist which of course is what ya'll are hoping for.
 
#28,894
#28,894
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...

Great day to celebrate the Army’s 250 birthday and marking their inception which fought against the KING of England. Hey we are all in agreement….we did not want kings then and we do not want them now. Thank God for Trump!!

And now back to the local loons destroying your city…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, Majors and TrumpedUpVol
#28,897
#28,897
General Jack said:
I've been on VN since 2004.

Please articulate for me how Obama was remotely as divisive as trump. Bonus points if you can avoid his original sin of being black or his desire for the vulnerable to have healthcare.
Click to expand...
Steele Dossier involvement
Every time he said Russian interference
Call all opponents of same-sex marriage bigots
Call the Pro-Life movement a "War on Women"
Call all immigration enforcement advocates racists
Call the GOP the enemy of Hispanics

Just a few off the top as most of this was before Trump came into the political picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buddy’s Bandit
#28,898
#28,898
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, VOLLeeann, volfanhill and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top