Whoa Nelly, 1962 Kennedy nationalized the Mississippi National Guard in response to Ross Barnett’s inaction to protect federal agents and Marshals enforcing desegregation it ol’ Miss. Didn't he also involve the 101st Airborne in case the Mississippi National Guard resisted?
Good point. I looked into some of this yesterday when I was writing this because I thought the same thing. Why was it ok to mobilize the national guard during Civil Rights but it's wrong now. This is what I learned:
Trigger
Kennedy - State defied a federal court order
Trump - States limiting cooperation, not obstructing federal law
State Role
Kennedy - State was the active lawbreaker. Gov. Ross Barnett openly obstructed federal agents
Trump - States declined to assist, but didn’t resist
National Guard Use
Kennedy - Guard was federalized and Governor Barnett was stripped of command because he was using the Mississippi National Guard to obstruct U.S. Marshals and interfere with a lawful federal court order.
Trump – hasn’t mentioned the Insurrection Act, citing instead § 12406 (authorizing federalization during “rebellion”) and legal authority to protect federal agents.
Legal Basis
Kennedy - Enforcing Supreme Court desegregation ruling under Insurrection Act
Trump - Citing § 12406 (rebellion) and constitutional authority but legal scholars question whether true rebellion exists
I'm not a lawyer, I just work with the facts I have. We can disagree with this but it is the only answer I can give you. Sorry.
I believe it is. However, the issue isn't are the protestors breaking the law, but does the President have the authority to use the National Guard if the Governor hasn't requested assistance.
It is possible for California (Newsom) to be wrong and Trump to be wrong as well.
Good post. Well presented. Most importantly you apply the law to the facts to arrive at your conclusions.
PS—As a general rule, I oppose all laws that criminalize liberty. In short, laws where there are no victims (no violation of an individual’s rights). I am no fan of the U.S. immigration laws—full stop.
I support open borders (see Bryan Caplan’s book by that name), which doesn’t mean that port of entry inspections fall by the wayside, it means that, all things equal, a free market should include people from other countries. I subscribe to the libertarian principles of voluntary trades between and among consenting adults and laws that punish those individuals who use force or the threat of force (including fraudulent acts) against others.
I’m not an expert on immigration laws in other countries, but if you take a look at our immigration laws in the early part of the 19th century you discover something approaching open borders. Federal immigration laws were minimal and states largely controlled immigration policies. If you eliminate those restrictions that are no different than the southern states’ Jim Crow laws you should have a good idea of my position.
I get your point, but that is a tough comparison to make. America in the early 19th century was an open frontier, crying out for expanded settlement. Nothing resembling the America of today.
I think the main issue with immigration today isn't that we lack an open frontier, it's that we now live in a welfare state. In the past people only moved to America (Canada, Australia, etc.) when they thought their lives would get better and if they failed, it was on them. Today, too many in the world are guaranteed a better life if they move "here" because taxpayer paid services guarantee it.
Immigration is important, but you can't have a welfare state and mass immigration.
True but why does that matter or change our view of immigration? I would encourage anyone who is skeptical to read Bryan Caplan’s book Open Borders—it’s a fun read because he made it into a graphic novel.
I think it has a tremendous effect on immigration views, actually.
During frontier times, America had a fledgling government centered on the east coast, which felt the need for expansion westward as a means to “protect its flank” from England (to the north in Canada and the west in what is now Kentucky and Illinois), France (to the southwest in what became the Louisiana Purchase), and Spain (in the west and southwest before Mexico became independent of Spain).
That expansion could not have been achieved merely by organic population growth via childbirth from the colonists, so immigration was seen as a necessary step toward settling the vast landscape in order to claim it. Because there was so much land, and much of it never mapped out, anyone brave enough to mount an expedition was encouraged to do so, with the promise of their own land. There were few if any laws regulating immigration or expansion. Open borders were necessary for the country’s continued survival, and everyone was expected to take care of themselves. There was no “government assistance”.
Today we don’t have that “sink or swim” mentality. The care of everyone is everybody’s responsibility, with public education, healthcare, housing, food and financial assistance.
So while immigration, with proper vetting, number balance controls, and consideration of benefit for America is a good and necessary thing, open borders is detrimental to the citizens who are already living here.
I will check out that graphic novel you recommended, always curious about other perspectives.
There are myriad reasons why. I believe entitlements came into being during the Great Depression, initially as federal grants to help unemployed workers stay afloat until they got back on their feet, which then evolved into welfare. In succeeding years, they tried (and in my opinion mostly failed, but that's another story for another day) to balance the scales of the disenfranchised.
But because they are funded by our taxes, they are a form of redistribution which can certainly be described as "the care of everyone is everybody's responsibility".
You think immigration laws in general are bad or just ours here is the US? And if it's just ours what specifically do you find objectionable about them compared to other countries?
Title 10 section 12406 also states that the executive can mobilize the guard "if there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States". I'd say the Supreme Court, and the majority of the voting public, would say what happened Friday night at the federal building in Los Angeles qualifies.
Also, there's a big distinction between 2k national guard troops guarding a federal being keeping it from being overrun by anarchists and paid rioters, which is what happened, and 2k national guard troops being turned loose in the streets to bust skulls which is what many people are making it out to be what happened. As far as I can tell 100% of the violence on sat and sunday occurred between the local pd, sheriff, and the useful idiots
I imagine if this goes on long enough we'll hear what the Supreme Court has to say. At the moment all I can do is quote constitutional experts.
As for what the voting public thinks, that only matters in an election. Rulings on the constitutionality of federal and state actions are made by the Supreme Court and they aren't elected.
The purpose of this article was to explain why it's happening and what the experts are thinking not to justify or condemn Trump's actions.
Respectfully, Whether or not those experts think what he's doing is legal depends entirely on which channel or new outlet they appear on imo with very few exceptions. If they like trump he's in the clear. If they don't, which is the vast majority of the "expert" class, everything he does is a fascistic overreach. So I don't put much weight in what they have to say and I think most rational people probably feel the same way. These are the same people that have lied to us for 10 years about trump. I highly doubt they suddenly put their bias aside bc he mobilized the guard. Just my opinion. 🤷
One doesn't need to be an expert to read the statute that I quoted above and anyone that looks at what's been happening in these cities objectively is likely to come to the same conclusion i did.
I'm looking forward to this making its way to SCOTUS as I think it will be a 6-3 (maybe 5-4 depending on Barrett) decision.
Excuse me. Not Fox, but you show the same kind of bias. The judicial review deemed the use of the act "unreasonable", not "illegal", and yes I did know that, but I don't agree. The legal opinions were split. If you had watched the protests every day as I did and heard their nonsense, you might understand why the convoy was considered a threat to national security.
When it was finally broken up, no one was hurt as they were slowly moved off the downtown streets. In contrast in LA, on the first day police were shooting rubber bullets at media and peaceful protesters on the other side of the street. For me, that's the contrast.
Your understanding of the convoy in Ottawa relies far too much on Fox. Peaceful protesters make their point and eventually leave. The convoy organizers had no such intention. The government treated them with kid gloves for a month before acting.
The LA situation on the other hand is entirely Donald Trump and his gang trying to provoke violence. There are peaceful means of enforcing the law, but he would rather break it by sending in masked thugs.
Your understanding of the two sides of the Convoy issue relies too much on the side blaming Fox.
I don't watch Fox. I gather information by reading the opinions of both sides and then use my brain to decide what should and shouldn't be done. I suggest you try doing the same.
Had you been reading the opinions of more than whatever leftwing (CBC?) nonsense you're consuming you might have noticed that Trudeau's actions were deemed illegal. It's in the article, but in case all you did was read the title, here it is:
My people mistake the actual utility of law. I sat on a jury... one of many. I always seem to end up the foreman even though I don't want to. I am an executive, dress at least in business casual for jury duty, and apparently give off the vibe that I will be the best mediator. I rejected it one time and nominated a medical doctor from my community... what a mistake. Jesus people are so incapable of understanding how to facilitate a group process toward a decision!
But on one duty where I was foreman, there was an older retired gentleman on the panel. I think he had been the principle owner of some engineering company if I remember. We were adjudicating a trial where a farmer hay truck driver turned after stopping and broadsided a car traveling down the road. The sun location was a contributing cause for both to not see each other. The victim had to be life-flighted and barely survived. He was a migrant worker without a license, but he was sewing the farming entity for damages... millions of course.
The prosecution claimed that the hay truck driver had exceeded his allowed hours at the wheel by 30 minutes. The calculation was convoluted. It took his hours from the previous couple of days, and his hours of sleep before waking up and pulling out of the yard and having this accident within a few minutes.
One of the jurors commented that the truck driver in fact broke the law being behind the wheel more time that the law allowed. Ironically in this civil case, there was no "law" to find for the defendant because the plaintiff did not have a valid license to drive. The older gentleman shook his head over that comment by the other juror. I asked him to provide his opinion. What he said has stuck with me since then. He said "if the law was so black and white, then we would not need the twelve of us to sit there and decide the verdict." He went on to say that having the right to be judged by a jury of your peers is part of our democrat representative governance... where real people need to make timely and real judgements weighing the nuances of a case. He said that we had been instructed to not consider that the plaintiff was both undocumented and lacking a valid license. "Fine" he said... "but the rules for truck drivers are generally meant to those that work a too long day, not those that sleep and wake up and then some bureaucrat does some math to claim some non-compliance above and beyond the actual spirits and intent of the rules."
Law is not absolute. It is not intended as a weapon against people that cannot defend against it because of the words outside of context and outside an assessment of the original spirit and intent of it. But more importantly, law was never intended to supersede the decisions of people as to what is right and what is wrong.
Trump was clearly elected to solve problems that the majority want solved. They are real problems. Legal resistance against that is, in fact, illegal from the consideration of the bigger picture for what the law is actually intended to protect. And conversely, the law was ignored by the previous administration so that precedent had already been set.
That was an interesting story and I enjoyed it. Are we talking about a form of jury nullification?
Let's jump to your last two paragraphs:
1. I agree to a point. Laws cannot cover every possible situation which is one of the reasons we have juries. It's also one of the reasons we (the US) has the Supreme Court. Some laws need interpretation based on the context.
2. Yes he was but that does not mean he get's to solve problems in any manner he chooses. To use hyperbole, illegal immigration could be solve by shooting every illegal in the country. (Almost) no one would argue in favor of that solution.
I support strong border policies. I also think illegal immigrants should face consequences. The only question I have is the legality of using the guard and/or military.
Whoa Nelly, 1962 Kennedy nationalized the Mississippi National Guard in response to Ross Barnett’s inaction to protect federal agents and Marshals enforcing desegregation it ol’ Miss. Didn't he also involve the 101st Airborne in case the Mississippi National Guard resisted?
Federal authority over all
Good point. I looked into some of this yesterday when I was writing this because I thought the same thing. Why was it ok to mobilize the national guard during Civil Rights but it's wrong now. This is what I learned:
Trigger
Kennedy - State defied a federal court order
Trump - States limiting cooperation, not obstructing federal law
State Role
Kennedy - State was the active lawbreaker. Gov. Ross Barnett openly obstructed federal agents
Trump - States declined to assist, but didn’t resist
National Guard Use
Kennedy - Guard was federalized and Governor Barnett was stripped of command because he was using the Mississippi National Guard to obstruct U.S. Marshals and interfere with a lawful federal court order.
Trump – hasn’t mentioned the Insurrection Act, citing instead § 12406 (authorizing federalization during “rebellion”) and legal authority to protect federal agents.
Legal Basis
Kennedy - Enforcing Supreme Court desegregation ruling under Insurrection Act
Trump - Citing § 12406 (rebellion) and constitutional authority but legal scholars question whether true rebellion exists
I'm not a lawyer, I just work with the facts I have. We can disagree with this but it is the only answer I can give you. Sorry.
Like most things is (d)ifferent when they do it
Isn't there an obstruction of federal law when people target ICE agents as they attempt to carry out their duties and enforce immigration law?
Exactly
I believe it is. However, the issue isn't are the protestors breaking the law, but does the President have the authority to use the National Guard if the Governor hasn't requested assistance.
It is possible for California (Newsom) to be wrong and Trump to be wrong as well.
As always, Philip, you champion the moderation of views to reflect reality, rather than automatically parroting everything that “your side” promotes.
A critique of the same lack of critical thought in politics is here:
https://zephareth.substack.com/p/too-many-people-are-happy-to-drink
Well thought out article. ZL
Thanks Z. I will check it out.
Good post. Well presented. Most importantly you apply the law to the facts to arrive at your conclusions.
PS—As a general rule, I oppose all laws that criminalize liberty. In short, laws where there are no victims (no violation of an individual’s rights). I am no fan of the U.S. immigration laws—full stop.
Thanks Daniel.
Keep pointing out when you think I get it wrong. I won't necessarily agree with you every time but someone has to push back to keep me honest.
I support open borders (see Bryan Caplan’s book by that name), which doesn’t mean that port of entry inspections fall by the wayside, it means that, all things equal, a free market should include people from other countries. I subscribe to the libertarian principles of voluntary trades between and among consenting adults and laws that punish those individuals who use force or the threat of force (including fraudulent acts) against others.
I’m not an expert on immigration laws in other countries, but if you take a look at our immigration laws in the early part of the 19th century you discover something approaching open borders. Federal immigration laws were minimal and states largely controlled immigration policies. If you eliminate those restrictions that are no different than the southern states’ Jim Crow laws you should have a good idea of my position.
I get your point, but that is a tough comparison to make. America in the early 19th century was an open frontier, crying out for expanded settlement. Nothing resembling the America of today.
I think the main issue with immigration today isn't that we lack an open frontier, it's that we now live in a welfare state. In the past people only moved to America (Canada, Australia, etc.) when they thought their lives would get better and if they failed, it was on them. Today, too many in the world are guaranteed a better life if they move "here" because taxpayer paid services guarantee it.
Immigration is important, but you can't have a welfare state and mass immigration.
True but why does that matter or change our view of immigration? I would encourage anyone who is skeptical to read Bryan Caplan’s book Open Borders—it’s a fun read because he made it into a graphic novel.
I think it has a tremendous effect on immigration views, actually.
During frontier times, America had a fledgling government centered on the east coast, which felt the need for expansion westward as a means to “protect its flank” from England (to the north in Canada and the west in what is now Kentucky and Illinois), France (to the southwest in what became the Louisiana Purchase), and Spain (in the west and southwest before Mexico became independent of Spain).
That expansion could not have been achieved merely by organic population growth via childbirth from the colonists, so immigration was seen as a necessary step toward settling the vast landscape in order to claim it. Because there was so much land, and much of it never mapped out, anyone brave enough to mount an expedition was encouraged to do so, with the promise of their own land. There were few if any laws regulating immigration or expansion. Open borders were necessary for the country’s continued survival, and everyone was expected to take care of themselves. There was no “government assistance”.
Today we don’t have that “sink or swim” mentality. The care of everyone is everybody’s responsibility, with public education, healthcare, housing, food and financial assistance.
So while immigration, with proper vetting, number balance controls, and consideration of benefit for America is a good and necessary thing, open borders is detrimental to the citizens who are already living here.
I will check out that graphic novel you recommended, always curious about other perspectives.
ZL
Why is “[t]he care of everyone…everybody’s responsibility, with public education, healthcare, housing, food and financial assistance”?
Not sure what you mean by that question.. Why?
There are myriad reasons why. I believe entitlements came into being during the Great Depression, initially as federal grants to help unemployed workers stay afloat until they got back on their feet, which then evolved into welfare. In succeeding years, they tried (and in my opinion mostly failed, but that's another story for another day) to balance the scales of the disenfranchised.
But because they are funded by our taxes, they are a form of redistribution which can certainly be described as "the care of everyone is everybody's responsibility".
More here:
https://zephareth.substack.com/p/when-entitlements-go-too-far
Hope I read your question correctly. ZL
Interesting. Thanks for responding.
You think immigration laws in general are bad or just ours here is the US? And if it's just ours what specifically do you find objectionable about them compared to other countries?
Title 10 section 12406 also states that the executive can mobilize the guard "if there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States". I'd say the Supreme Court, and the majority of the voting public, would say what happened Friday night at the federal building in Los Angeles qualifies.
Also, there's a big distinction between 2k national guard troops guarding a federal being keeping it from being overrun by anarchists and paid rioters, which is what happened, and 2k national guard troops being turned loose in the streets to bust skulls which is what many people are making it out to be what happened. As far as I can tell 100% of the violence on sat and sunday occurred between the local pd, sheriff, and the useful idiots
I imagine if this goes on long enough we'll hear what the Supreme Court has to say. At the moment all I can do is quote constitutional experts.
As for what the voting public thinks, that only matters in an election. Rulings on the constitutionality of federal and state actions are made by the Supreme Court and they aren't elected.
The purpose of this article was to explain why it's happening and what the experts are thinking not to justify or condemn Trump's actions.
Respectfully, Whether or not those experts think what he's doing is legal depends entirely on which channel or new outlet they appear on imo with very few exceptions. If they like trump he's in the clear. If they don't, which is the vast majority of the "expert" class, everything he does is a fascistic overreach. So I don't put much weight in what they have to say and I think most rational people probably feel the same way. These are the same people that have lied to us for 10 years about trump. I highly doubt they suddenly put their bias aside bc he mobilized the guard. Just my opinion. 🤷
One doesn't need to be an expert to read the statute that I quoted above and anyone that looks at what's been happening in these cities objectively is likely to come to the same conclusion i did.
I'm looking forward to this making its way to SCOTUS as I think it will be a 6-3 (maybe 5-4 depending on Barrett) decision.
Excuse me. Not Fox, but you show the same kind of bias. The judicial review deemed the use of the act "unreasonable", not "illegal", and yes I did know that, but I don't agree. The legal opinions were split. If you had watched the protests every day as I did and heard their nonsense, you might understand why the convoy was considered a threat to national security.
When it was finally broken up, no one was hurt as they were slowly moved off the downtown streets. In contrast in LA, on the first day police were shooting rubber bullets at media and peaceful protesters on the other side of the street. For me, that's the contrast.
Your understanding of the convoy in Ottawa relies far too much on Fox. Peaceful protesters make their point and eventually leave. The convoy organizers had no such intention. The government treated them with kid gloves for a month before acting.
The LA situation on the other hand is entirely Donald Trump and his gang trying to provoke violence. There are peaceful means of enforcing the law, but he would rather break it by sending in masked thugs.
Your understanding of the two sides of the Convoy issue relies too much on the side blaming Fox.
I don't watch Fox. I gather information by reading the opinions of both sides and then use my brain to decide what should and shouldn't be done. I suggest you try doing the same.
Had you been reading the opinions of more than whatever leftwing (CBC?) nonsense you're consuming you might have noticed that Trudeau's actions were deemed illegal. It's in the article, but in case all you did was read the title, here it is:
https://www.cato.org/blog/canadian-court-trudeaus-use-emergency-powers-crush-protests-was-illegal
My people mistake the actual utility of law. I sat on a jury... one of many. I always seem to end up the foreman even though I don't want to. I am an executive, dress at least in business casual for jury duty, and apparently give off the vibe that I will be the best mediator. I rejected it one time and nominated a medical doctor from my community... what a mistake. Jesus people are so incapable of understanding how to facilitate a group process toward a decision!
But on one duty where I was foreman, there was an older retired gentleman on the panel. I think he had been the principle owner of some engineering company if I remember. We were adjudicating a trial where a farmer hay truck driver turned after stopping and broadsided a car traveling down the road. The sun location was a contributing cause for both to not see each other. The victim had to be life-flighted and barely survived. He was a migrant worker without a license, but he was sewing the farming entity for damages... millions of course.
The prosecution claimed that the hay truck driver had exceeded his allowed hours at the wheel by 30 minutes. The calculation was convoluted. It took his hours from the previous couple of days, and his hours of sleep before waking up and pulling out of the yard and having this accident within a few minutes.
One of the jurors commented that the truck driver in fact broke the law being behind the wheel more time that the law allowed. Ironically in this civil case, there was no "law" to find for the defendant because the plaintiff did not have a valid license to drive. The older gentleman shook his head over that comment by the other juror. I asked him to provide his opinion. What he said has stuck with me since then. He said "if the law was so black and white, then we would not need the twelve of us to sit there and decide the verdict." He went on to say that having the right to be judged by a jury of your peers is part of our democrat representative governance... where real people need to make timely and real judgements weighing the nuances of a case. He said that we had been instructed to not consider that the plaintiff was both undocumented and lacking a valid license. "Fine" he said... "but the rules for truck drivers are generally meant to those that work a too long day, not those that sleep and wake up and then some bureaucrat does some math to claim some non-compliance above and beyond the actual spirits and intent of the rules."
Law is not absolute. It is not intended as a weapon against people that cannot defend against it because of the words outside of context and outside an assessment of the original spirit and intent of it. But more importantly, law was never intended to supersede the decisions of people as to what is right and what is wrong.
Trump was clearly elected to solve problems that the majority want solved. They are real problems. Legal resistance against that is, in fact, illegal from the consideration of the bigger picture for what the law is actually intended to protect. And conversely, the law was ignored by the previous administration so that precedent had already been set.
That was an interesting story and I enjoyed it. Are we talking about a form of jury nullification?
Let's jump to your last two paragraphs:
1. I agree to a point. Laws cannot cover every possible situation which is one of the reasons we have juries. It's also one of the reasons we (the US) has the Supreme Court. Some laws need interpretation based on the context.
2. Yes he was but that does not mean he get's to solve problems in any manner he chooses. To use hyperbole, illegal immigration could be solve by shooting every illegal in the country. (Almost) no one would argue in favor of that solution.
I support strong border policies. I also think illegal immigrants should face consequences. The only question I have is the legality of using the guard and/or military.