- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS says NO to National Guard in Chicago
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:26 pm to Sweep Da Leg
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:26 pm to Sweep Da Leg
quote:No. It really isn't.
fricking absurd
The people of Illinois own this. If they elect to have an unsafe crap state, that is their unfortunate prerogative.
0
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:26 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Trump should just expand the US Marshalls and a lot of non-dem FBI agents.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:30 pm to LSUTANGERINE
The key part seems to be the courts defining regular forces as being the military not the regular federal law enforcement forces.
It doesn’t make sense that the law can authorize using either as stated in 1st quote below, but then get caught up in a legal technicality on the definition of regular forces in 2nd quote below on the ability to federalize national guard to help the federal officers actually execute the federal law only if regular military can legally execute the law by itself (which the national guard wouldn’t actually be doing and acting in a support role while ICE enforced federal law). That’s before getting into debate on whether the military then has to fail or have all its resources dedicated elsewhere before allowing national guard to be federalized.
It would also lead to debate on the legal definition “federal service members” that would have same requirements under the law in 2nd quote below. Under this interpretation it cannot be the military as that what they are calling the “regular forces” which would have already been legally there to legally execute the laws but failing under this ruling for the other 2 to be legally called in.
From 10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call
quote:
The dispute centers on a federal statute that allows the president to federalize the National Guard when he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
The Court interpreted “regular forces” to mean the U.S. military, not civilian federal law-enforcement agencies.
That distinction matters because, under long-standing federal law, the military is generally barred from enforcing domestic laws unless Congress has specifically authorized it. The Court said the government did not show that the military could legally carry out the enforcement role described, or that such authority had been triggered.
… Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court unnecessarily restricted presidential authority and should have allowed the deployment to proceed. Alito pointed out that both parties in earlier briefs treated “regular forces” as meaning federal civilian law enforcement, so the court shouldn’t have raised a new interpretation on its own.
It doesn’t make sense that the law can authorize using either as stated in 1st quote below, but then get caught up in a legal technicality on the definition of regular forces in 2nd quote below on the ability to federalize national guard to help the federal officers actually execute the federal law only if regular military can legally execute the law by itself (which the national guard wouldn’t actually be doing and acting in a support role while ICE enforced federal law). That’s before getting into debate on whether the military then has to fail or have all its resources dedicated elsewhere before allowing national guard to be federalized.
It would also lead to debate on the legal definition “federal service members” that would have same requirements under the law in 2nd quote below. Under this interpretation it cannot be the military as that what they are calling the “regular forces” which would have already been legally there to legally execute the laws but failing under this ruling for the other 2 to be legally called in.
From 10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law
quote:
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
…2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
10 U.S. Code § 12406 - National Guard in Federal service: call
quote:
Whenever—
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.
This post was edited on 12/23/25 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:31 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
Trump should just expand the US Marshalls and a lot of non-dem FBI agents.
It’s not the role of the federal government to enforce local criminal laws.
Didn’t realize we had so many big government lovers here.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:32 pm to LSUTANGERINE
the funny thing is that you are such a liberal nut job, you like this and think it is good.....you are a real piece of work.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:35 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Trump has the absolute right to deny federal funds to “sanctuary” states that ignore federal law.
Not unlike when the feds forced the State of Louisiana to lower the presumption of intoxication to .08 by refusing to send federal highway funds.
Not unlike when the feds forced the State of Louisiana to lower the presumption of intoxication to .08 by refusing to send federal highway funds.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:36 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:37 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Not at all. It was a stretch to begin with, and Trump knew it was a stretch. It would have been a significant expansion of Executive power.
You don’t even understand the procedural issues here. You’re a complete moron.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:38 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Trump cult
Trite cliches from the boards most uneducated.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:41 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
Might be the only sex she gets and why she supports policy that frees criminals.
She does work "closely" with them.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:42 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:
quote:
Trump should just expand the US Marshalls and a lot of non-dem FBI agents.
It’s not the role of the federal government to enforce local criminal laws.
Didn’t realize we had so many big government lovers here.
A bunch of commie rioters attacking a federal ICE facility is well within federal powers as are many other organized criminal activities.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:52 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:
It’s not the role of the federal government to enforce local criminal laws.
Are they doing that, or are they enforcing federal law (specifically immigration laws), protecting federal buildings and property, and for the guard supporting those federal officers actually enforcing federal law while also helping to protect federal buildings and property used by those federal officers?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:54 pm to CapnKangaroo
quote:
Didn’t realize we had so many big government lovers here.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 6:55 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Trite cliches
When I see this used to insult, I automatically know their mother spreads pudding on their screens for snack time.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:05 pm to dallastigers
quote:
Are they doing that, or are they enforcing federal law (specifically immigration laws), protecting federal buildings and property, and for the guard supporting those federal officers actually enforcing federal law while also helping to protect federal buildings and property used by those federal officers?
Is that what their stated mission is?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:29 pm to ole man
Mrs. O'Leary, we hardly knew ye.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:38 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Fatass Pritzker fixin to eat, still.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:43 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Politics have further devolved into chaos. Virtue signaling is more important than trying to make Chicago safer.
The black residents who are tired of living in fear under the oppression of gang violence... are completely ignored by Democrats.
The black residents who are tired of living in fear under the oppression of gang violence... are completely ignored by Democrats.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:45 pm to Plx1776
quote:
Virtue signaling is more important than trying to make Chicago safer.
A more accurate description is constitutional limits on the executive is more important than virtue signaling
Posted on 12/23/25 at 7:49 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
quote:
Good. Let that shîthole burn to the fricking ground.
If they don't want to reduce their crime, why should we force it on them?
I wish the Guard would come to my shithole city.......
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News