The execute bullshit is a legal power granted to the president. The brick throwing is literally assault with a deadly weapon I don’t see how u can justify that. It doesn’t matter what u think the president should be it matters what the laws of the country state that the president is. What laws are being broken in the case of la (well except the rioters)?
U have been misled. All people deported have already been issued with “final orders of removal” at which point the supreme court agrees you no longer have any right to due process. As that was forfeit when you failed to turn up to ur court appearance. Ie illegal immigrants where told hey ur here illegally come make ur case or ur getting deported. Said illegal immigrants then failed to show up at which point they where issued with “final orders of removal” most of these illegal immigrants where issued this years ago and have simply been illegally in the country ever since.
“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
Well that’s strange, don’t you think? Why did he usurp Newsom’s power in CA, but refused to do so in DC? Could it be that he would stand to gain something if the coup succeeded?
The execute bullshit is a legal power granted to the president. The brick throwing is literally assault with a deadly weapon I don’t see how u can justify that. It doesn’t matter what u think the president should be it matters what the laws of the country state that the president is. What laws are being broken in the case of la (well except the rioters)?
deportations by ice without due process in violation of court orders (this is what the people in LA are directly protesting)
the president commandeering the national guard for domestic use in absence of an invasion
U have been misled. All people deported have already been issued with “final orders of removal” at which point the supreme court agrees you no longer have any right to due process. As that was forfeit when you failed to turn up to ur court appearance. Ie illegal immigrants where told hey ur here illegally come make ur case or ur getting deported. Said illegal immigrants then failed to show up at which point they where issued with “final orders of removal” most of these illegal immigrants where issued this years ago and have simply been illegally in the country ever since.
“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Untrue. Deportation and detention of American citizens in the second Trump administration.
There is no credible danger of rebellion from unarmed protestors. The fatality count stands at zero and the casualties are mostly journalists who have been injured by the police
Not according to the Constitution which grants these powers to the Supreme Court who have stated that what Trump is doing is illegal
“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
Is a riot actually a rebellion? No. Is breaking the law a rebellious act? No.
Was January 6 a riot or a rebellion?
A riot and attempted rebellion. Trump wanted the nation guard their and was blocked by the local govner.
Well that’s strange, don’t you think? Why did he usurp Newsom’s power in CA, but refused to do so in DC? Could it be that he would stand to gain something if the coup succeeded?
Maybe because last time when he didn’t there was an insurrection? Maybe he learned from last time?