- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
1
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:00 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
unlawful orders.
If it is a State Law on the books, then it is not an unlawful order by the governor of that State if he has activated the National Guard under State Active Duty.
I am not arguing that the Governor has carte blanche to pass laws but if the law passes in the State and is not challenged and struck down, then what exactly makes it not a lawful order?
I don't agree with it but talking about charging soldiers for enforcing State Law when they are ordered to enforce said State Law is a pretty damn gray area.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:04 am to The Maj
quote:
If it is a State Law on the books, then it is not an unlawful order by the governor of that State if he has activated the National Guard under State Active Duty.
State law has precedent over the constitution?
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:06 am to Jjdoc
How does a state "nationalize" anything?
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:06 am to FredBear
They don’t, they just have some really stupid state reps.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:08 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Va Gov considers nationalizing the National Guard to enforce gun control.
These people are pushing us closer to a civil war.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:08 am to boomtown143
quote:
State law has precedent over the constitution?
Where did you see me suggesting that? But when you are discussing whether or not an order is lawful of not, if the State Law has not been determined to be invalid, then you really cannot charge a soldier for enforcing it if ordered to do so.
Title 32 walks in the State and Federal world and you are asking PFC Snuffy from Podunk, VA to be a Constitutional Scholar?
I do not agree with the law of the Governor activating the Guard to enforce it, btw. I am just saying that this is a very gray area.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:09 am to FredBear
I think the progstain meant mobilize instead of nationalize.
This post was edited on 12/17/19 at 10:14 am
Posted on 12/17/19 at 10:20 am to DaTiger
quote:
These people are pushing us closer to a civil war.
That's exactly what they want. Divide and conquer.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 11:15 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
That's exactly what they want. Divide and conquer.
The fastest way to impose leftist totalitarian rule upon us is to provoke We the People into some kind of violent response to their leftist provocations.
That's why so much of what we see today from the Left is so very provocative -- IT IS INTENTIONALLY SO. It is intended to provoke us into either submission or violent over-reaction. Both of these responses are mistakes.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 11:17 am to Champagne
I don’t think leftists would be so quick to push for a violent reaction if they knew they would be first against the wall.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 11:21 am to The Maj
quote:
I don't agree with it but talking about charging soldiers for enforcing State Law when they are ordered to enforce said State Law is a pretty damn gray area.
Could be a very red area if they aren't careful.
I think the Dems are most likely trying to provoke a first strike from the 2A people then they can justify a Ruby Ridge type deal state wide and bring in the Feds.
Then you probably start getting people from other states involved and it becomes an all out clusterfrick.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 11:27 am to The Maj
quote:
Where did you see me suggesting that? But when you are discussing whether or not an order is lawful of not, if the State Law has not been determined to be invalid, then you really cannot charge a soldier for enforcing it if ordered to do so.
If state law is repugnant to the Constitution, it cannot be lawful, whether it has been ruled as such or not.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 11:37 am to troyt37
quote:
If state law is repugnant to the Constitution, it cannot be lawful, whether it has been ruled as such or not.
So, who determines if it is repugnant to the Constitution? You expect some PFC nobody to stop and say "this is repgunant to the Constitution, therefore it is not a lawful order" in this situation?
Tell me, under Title 32, what law is the PFC in question breaking by following an order in this situation?
Posted on 12/17/19 at 11:59 am to The Maj
quote:
Tell me, under Title 32, what law is the PFC in question breaking by following an order in this situation?
I can't tell you anything about Title 32, and it doesn't really matter.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If you are infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you are breaking the law. Just for clarity, confiscating guns from law abiding citizens is pretty much the definition of infringement.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 12:08 pm to troyt37
And Virginia's Constitution contains this little gem in it's Bill of Rights: Article I. Bill of Rights
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 12:18 pm to BFIV
If the governor ordered the NG mobilized, the President could override and issue a stand down order, right?
Posted on 12/17/19 at 12:30 pm to GoT1de
quote:
Va Gov considers nationalizing the National Guard to enforce gun control.
If the governor ordered the NG mobilized, the President could override and issue a stand down order, right?
If Gov Blackface orders the guard to disarm the populace, federalize the guard and send them to patrol the Texas border.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 12:38 pm to Steadyhands
quote:
Yes, but aren't they required to disobey orders that would go against what is right, like the Constitution. Seems like in a scenario such as this where there is a direct contradiction between the feds, the Constitution, and the state law, that soldiers would be bound to upholding the Constitution.
I think what he also fails to realize, is that even if any Governor "mobilizes" his state Guard, the Commander in Chief can "NATIONALIZE" the same Guard units, whereby they work for the Commander in Chief, not some prog filth vermin Governor. That's all GEOTUS would have to do, and give them a direct order not to go against the 2nd Amendment/Constitution. Those "Nationalized/Federalized" Guard units would no longer be beholden to the Governor, they would have to follow the orders of the Pentagon and the Commander in Chief. Yes, it is this simple.
Posted on 12/17/19 at 1:18 pm to GoT1de
Not stand down but POTUS can bring them under Title 10 and out of the governor’s control. This happened in several states during the civil rights movement...
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News