Darn that extra-legal authoritarianism…
The signing of the declaration, which vests Nielsen with the power to request military action to protect U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, appeared to take Defense Secretary James Mattis by surprise.
Kelly and Nielsen argued against signing the declaration, which granted the military broad authority at the border, telling the president that the move was beyond his constitutional powers.
They were vocally opposed by, among others, senior policy adviser Stephen Miller; Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council; and Brandon Judd, president of the border patrol union. Also present was Vice President Mike Pence, who did not take a stand on the issue, according to one of the people briefed on the debate.
The signing of the declaration, which vests Nielsen with the power to request military action to protect U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, appeared to take Defense Secretary James Mattis by surprise. It’s an indication of the extent to which immigration policy in the Trump White House is engineered by a small group of hawks, including Miller — and, as a result, has often caught other stakeholders off guard.
The president’s move on Tuesday is also illustrative of the extent to which, on immigration in particular, he has stretched the limits of his constitutional powers, preferring to issue executive orders rather than work through Congress. It’s an instinct that has been encouraged by advisers like Miller, who have pointed out that previous presidents have extended the powers of the executive branch further.
Federal troops have a long history of domestic roles, including occupying secessionist Southern states during Reconstruction and putting down major urban riots. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of active duty personnel to “execute the laws”; however, there is disagreement over whether this language may apply to troops used in an advisory, support, disaster response, or other homeland defense role, as opposed to domestic law enforcement.
On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received “administrative actions”.
Stunt-POTUS* has doomed us to repeat Santayana quotes….
Although the popular view is that Hitler drafted the oath himself and imposed it on the military, the oath was the initiative of Defence Minister General Werner von Blomberg and General Walther von Reichenau, the chief of the Ministerial Office. Indeed, Hitler was surprised by the oath. Before Hitler took office, the military swore the Reichswehreid to the German constitution and president. The intention of Blomberg and Reichenau in having the military swear an oath to Hitler was to create a personal special bond between him and the military, which was intended to tie Hitler more tightly towards the military and away from the NSDAP. Years later, Blomberg admitted that he did not think through the full implications of the oath at the time.
August 20, 1934, the cabinet decreed the “Law On The Allegiance of Civil Servants and Soldiers of the Armed Forces”, which superseded the original oaths. Prior to the decree, both members of the armed forces and civil servants had sworn loyalty to “the People and the Fatherland” (Volk und Vaterland); civil servants had additionally sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of Germany. The new law decreed that instead, both members of the armed forces and civil servants would swear an oath to Hitler personally.
Eighty years is not enough distance.
U.S. border guard shoots rock thrower: A U.S. Border Patrol agent has shot and killed an apparently undocument… http://t.co/bucdGvCQdO
— Yahoo! (@Official_YMY) February 20, 2014
Note how all these RW actions are constructed and which audiences they also address
Thought: 1st time a Palestinian rock thrower/firebomber is shot by police here, and Trump says "well, sorry, that should get you killed"….
— Tzvi Zucker (@TzviZucker) January 22, 2017
two Kent States:
”So, this Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for memories, good and bad, and for the common history they comprise, good and bad, peaceful and bloody. They are the best weapons against a politics gone mad and a president* gone mad with it. We find even our collective short-term memory overwhelmed by events, day after day. The president*’s main refuge is the constant present tense, and it is a redoubtable one. But it’s not an impregnable one. The arsenal of history, individual and collective, is becoming arrayed against it, and that arsenal’s primary weapon is our memory, of who we are and what we were, so we can define whom we want to become. It is still there, waiting to be used, and I give thanks for that.”
Migrants seeking asylum are not an insurrection
In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.
Section 1076 is titled “Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies.” It provided that:
- The President may employ the armed forces… to… restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition… the President determines that… domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order… or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such… a condition… so hinders the execution of the laws… 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… or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act. It was originally written to limit presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness.
Remember that Trump is doing this to prep the ground for when the Mueller report arrives and lawfare escalates.
Odds are that _any_ judge would’ve ruled the same way.
Trump’s claim that it’s the appeals court most often reversed by #SCOTUS is categorically false, whether over the last two years, five years, or longer. In fact, that honor goes to the Third Circuit (NJ, PA, DE, VI).
5. As I’ve noted previously, over the past five Terms, three other circuits have been reversed in a higher percentage of the cases #SCOTUS has reviewed from those courts (the Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits):
- Once again, over the last five Terms, three federal appeals courts have been reversed by #SCOTUS in a higher percentage of cases than the Ninth Circuit:
- 1) Third Circuit (12/13 = 92%)
- 2) Sixth Circuit (26/31 = 84%)
- 3) Eleventh Circuit (18/22 = 82%)
- 4) Ninth Circuit (48/60 = 80%)
So here, @realDonaldTrump is just lying.
99.9% of lower-court rulings, _including_ those by the Ninth Circuit, are never reviewed by the Justices.
In a nutshell, #SCOTUS takes far too few cases to use its decisions for quantitative evaluations of the circuits.
Other than that, though…
This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.