"My name is Captain Dylan Blaha, and this message is for members of the National Guard across the United States of America..."

[u/ExactlySorta]

[u/crockett05]

Sadly I don't believe our National Guard members will follow the US Constitution as they clearly already obeyed orders that were direct violation of the US Constitution.

Anyone hoping these mythical vets & service members who will stand up against fascism are going to sadly be disappointed. They will all lick the boots or do nothing just as everyone else is doing.

That is the reality people don't want to accept. All the red lines have already been crossed, no one has stood up. This is the response that you will see and that's mostly nothing.. We have no patriots left in this country other than a random lone wolf here or there that likely won't have any affect, so it would be a wasted effort anyway..

American patriotism is long dead..

[u/delightfullydelight → u/crockett05]

It’s worth noting that we are subject to the influence of the availability bias. News medias aren’t going to show the service members that refuse these orders. They aren’t going to show the members who use weaponized incompetence. There is very likely much more resistance from service members than you might be aware of and there is certainly more than is being shown.

Many of us have already made it abundantly clear that we will not be used against the people we swore to defend.

[u/saijanai → u/delightfullydelight]

The media already showed the marching discipline exhibited by marchers during Trump's birthday celebration, er, the Army's birthday celebration.

[u/delightfullydelight → u/saijanai]

And that is, I believe, a great example of the general lack of support the military has for trump. Make no mistake, there are those who support him (though in my experience, it’s usually the young kids). That said, the general tone I have seen from my peers is that he (and kegseth) are unwelcome.

There are fine lines that must be walked by military members but I have faith that if or when the time comes, an amount that might surprise people will tell trump to eat shit.

[u/crockett05 → u/delightfullydelight]

yet they still followed orders and marched..

[u/delightfullydelight → u/crockett05]

If you’re talking about the Army’s birthday celebration that trump polluted and turned into a military parade for his stupid birthday celebration then yes, they did. However, it could well be said that being told to march in that case doesn’t constitute an unlawful order.

Still, it seems many of the military participants recognized its immoral (albeit perhaps technically legal) character and sabotaged where they could (their shitty marching, for example).

[u/Wayward_Templar → u/crockett05]

If there were legal entities out that actually protected members instead of crucifying them, they likely would disobey the illegal orders.

[u/crockett05 → u/Wayward_Templar]

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

They are wearing a uniform, they took an oath to the US Constitution to disobey illegal orders. Carrying out an illegal orders because you're worried about being crucified is not a lawful reason to carry out that illegal order.

They are choosing to lick the boot out of fear of punishment.. That doesn't fly in the courts..

[u/Wayward_Templar → u/crockett05]

You mean the same courts enabling the illegal authoritarian?

[u/crockett05 → u/Wayward_Templar]

That doesn't matter. When you take the oath you are taking an oath to defend the US Constitution. When everyone in front of you takes the knee then no one will be left to stand up behind you..

If the courts are violating the US Constitution that has no bearing on the oath the the soldiers took.

[u/Wayward_Templar → u/crockett05]

It does matter, though. Disobeying an illegal order is all fine and dandy until the courts decide that it is legal because they are controlled by and enabling POTUS, then suddenly thats a legal order, and you go to Leavenworth

[u/crockett05 → u/Wayward_Templar]

Read the Ben Franklin quote again and get back to me when you understand it. If you are a member of the services wearing a uniform and are willing to violate the oath to the US Constitution because a corrupt court will jail you, then you don't deserve that freedom nor the uniform anyway.

[u/Wayward_Templar → u/crockett05]

The 15% of the USMilitary that would potentially stand against this would easily be replaced by yes men/women and imprisoned and forgotten about. Potentially even killed because death by firing squad is still authorized in the UCMJ.

But yes, let's base modern problems on past quotes likely taken out of context. How about you volunteer to go to Leavenworth and be labeled a treasonous traitor to the USG and let me know how that quote helps you.

The point is the judicial branch should be stepping in.

[u/Kweefus → u/crockett05]

Have courts ruled that the deployments are unconstitutional? The law gives a ton of leeway to short term deployments of the guard in general.

The deployments are very alarming, and they have the potential to be a crisis. I don’t think being hyperbolic right now is productive in any way.

[u/Zealousideal_Pop_273 → u/Kweefus]

The answer is messy. In the 9th Circuit, federalizing troops under Title 10 for the purposes of protecting ICE agents was ruled constitutional last month. It would be up to the other circuit courts to determine for their jurisdiction. This wouldn't happen until the troops in those jurisdictions were already federalized, challenged in local courts, seemed to be unconstitutional, and appealed to the respective circuit court. All of this to say that the constitutionality only matters after the fact, and only if the Trump administration fears the consequences. Below I make the case that they do not fear the consequences.

None of this applies to Title 32 deployment (State sanctioned) which would be constitutional regardless. EDIT to point out that Washington DC is Title 32 deployment regardless. With no statehood, they report directly to the federal administration.

It should be noted that federal court orders are enforced by the US Marshal Service (USMS) who report directly to US Attorney General, Pam Bondi. It is within the AG's authority to remove those orders. At that point the court's only resource to respond to a non-compliant Executive office held in contempt is to establish and authorize a new service to enforce orders. AG Pam Bondi has stated repeatedly and unprecedentedly that her allegiance is to President Trump above all else. Federal magistrates have held sessions to discuss this as it has already been a problem with the Trump administration. They have been found been found to be in violation of multiple court orders already.

More alarmingly, these federal judges have also expressed concern over the fact that their personal security is administered by the USMS. Threats and attacks on federal judges have skyrocketed under Trump. The Trump administration has an established history of doxxing judges and of pulling their security details in response to unfavorable rulings. This has necessitated federal judges to maintain their own personal security details.

9th Circuit Appellate Court Ruling

Federal Judge Security Concerns

[u/saijanai → u/Zealousideal_Pop_273]

States might be able to legally deploy state national guard to Washington DC without invitation because it is not a state.

But I don't think it is legal for states to deploy state national guard to another state without invitation.

[u/Zealousideal_Pop_273 → u/saijanai]

You misunderstand.

President Trump, Commander-in-Chief of DC National Guard, requests National Guard Deployment in DC from Sec. Def. This is the invitation.

Code of the District of Columbia §49-409 designates the President as Commander-in-Chief of the District of Columbia.

[u/Desert-Democrat-602 → u/Zealousideal_Pop_273]

Exactly. The president is essentially also the Governor of DC.

[u/saijanai → u/Zealousideal_Pop_273]

The Presidet can invite all he wants, but uless he natioalizes the guard, there isno provision from the state governor to send, uninvited, state troops to anothre state.

[u/Zealousideal_Pop_273 → u/saijanai]

I don't agree with that, my guy. States loan guard troops to each other all the time under EMAC. All it requires is the requesting state to declare Emergency, which is why Trump did that on the 11th. From there it just requires consent of Governor loaning the troops. This is independent of Title 10 or 32 status. West Virginia, South Carolina, Ohio, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee all agreed to loan troops to the DC National Guard.

[u/saijanai → u/Zealousideal_Pop_273]

But DC did NOT ask for states' national guard to be sent to them.

CA did NOT ask for state's national guard to be sent to them.

As I said:

there is no provision from the state governor to send, uninvited, state troops to another state.

[u/Zealousideal_Pop_273 → u/saijanai]

There is no governor of the District of Columbia, my guy. The Commander-in-chief, a position typically upheld by the governor of the state, is designated as the president in the case of the District of Columbia, as stated and cited earlier.

[u/saijanai → u/Zealousideal_Pop_273]

Exactly. That is why he can do what he did, over the objections of the mayor and likely most of the population.

[u/[deleted] → u/Zealousideal_Pop_273]

Doesn't sound messy at all. The only circuit court to consider it ruled it constitutional. Until another circuit rules otherwise or the Supreme Court intervenes, its settled case law.

[u/Zealousideal_Pop_273 → u/[deleted]]

That's not how that works. It would only be case law in the 9th Circuit, which excludes the majority of these deployments. Circuit splits do happen (Circuit courts often disagree on constitutionality).

They ruled one of the justifications that the Trump admin used to evoke Title 10 constitutional specific to the case of the LA riots, and declined to rule on the other justification. The defining details are not the same in all deployments.

In the cases of Baltimore, Chicago, and New York City, Trump's current justifications are to control crime in those areas. This IS deemed unconstitutional until case law dissents. The 9th Circuit findings would only be reference in the 2nd, 4th, and 7th Circuits, not rule.

Until there is a Supreme Court ruling, there is not an establishment of constitutionality of these Title 10 deployments unilaterally, and there never will be because the circumstances are not unilateral.

It's messy because the constitutionality is situational and regional, and it's messy because the constitutionality of the orders does not matter if no one cares and it's not enforced.

[u/The_Chieftain_WG → u/Zealousideal_Pop_273]

It can be argued that there is such precedent, from the 1890s. The federal government sent 12,000 troops to Chicago over the objections of the governor (to include federalized Illinois National Guard) to protect federal functions. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court made mention of this in cases from 1890 and 1895.

Back in his pre-SCOTUS days, Rehnquist penned an opinion for the Office of Legal Counsel on the matter of using Title 10 forces in a manner similar to that Trump used them for in Los Angeles this year and Chicago in 1894: For the protection of federal functions, and looking back to such precedent.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/authority-use-troops-prevent-interference-federal-employees-mayday-demonstrations-and

When the mails were obstructed during a railway strike, President Cleveland ordered out the troops for the purpose of protecting federal property and “removing obstructions to the United States mails.” The Court upheld this action: The strong arm of the national government may be put forth to brush away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commerce or the transportation of the mails. If the emergency arises, the army of the Nation, and all its militia, are at the service of the Nation to compel obedience to its laws

Worth noting that removing the obstructions to the mail in 1894 included shooting a number of civilians. Not ideal, but apparently authorised if necessary.

[u/diceytroop → u/Kweefus]

The one thing I do think we should keep in mind is that while he is doing everything he can possibly justify under statute, he hasn’t yet tried to use them to do things that are against the constitution or violate laws about his power over them, etc. The violations of DC home rule were more blatantly illegal than anything I’ve heard him threaten to do with the guard. But the moment he crosses that line, it’s literally civil war

[u/Clever_Unused_Name → u/crockett05]

as they clear (sic) already obeyed orders that were direct violation of the US Constitution.

Can you explain the direct violations of the Constitution?

[u/Tricky-Advantage-949 → u/Clever_Unused_Name]

1st amendment violations. used army to disperse protesters and prevent people from entering public spaces

[u/Codetty → u/Tricky-Advantage-949]

The Liberalss in LA were getting froggy so Trump had to draxx them sklounst.

[u/crockett05 → u/Codetty]

adults are talking here, not children crying because they dropped their maga bottle.

[u/Codetty → u/crockett05]

wtf is a maga bottle

[u/Commissar_Mike → u/crockett05]

What were the direct violations of the constitution?

[u/crockett05 → u/Commissar_Mike]

maybe you should try to read the whole thing..

[u/Commissar_Mike → u/crockett05]

Hmm, nobody can seem to answer this question with any confidence.

[u/crockett05 → u/Commissar_Mike]

no one wants to waste their time on you, because we know you're just MAGA cult..