Total posts: 80
Orders calling the guard in to federal service have to be issued through the governor under US code. Id wondered what their excuse was for trying to bypass California's governor. Well today I found it, and it gave me a good chuckle. Presented for the community's amusement is Trump's legal position on tbe subject:
(from federal district court judge Breyer's opinion, Trump's excuse bolded)
2. Section 12406’s Procedural Requirements
Shortly after enacting the Militia Act of 1903, Congress amended the Act to require that any orders issued under § 12406 be issued “through the governor of the respective State ... from which State ... such troops may be called.” Militia Act of 1908, Pub. L. No. 60-145, § 3, 35 Stat. 399, 400. Section 12406 maintains this requirement: “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States ... .”
Plaintiffs assert that President Trump failed to comply with this procedural requirement. They explain that Governor Newsom first learned that President Trump had called 2,000 of California’s National Guard members into federal service when California’s adjutant general forwarded him the June 7 DOD Order. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. K. From that point on, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, not the Governor, has issued all orders to the federalized National Guard. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. J. Similarly, Secretary Hegseth—not Governor Newsom—issued the June 9 order calling another 2,000 National Guard members into federal service. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. S.
Defendants assert that they complied with § 12406 because written at the top of the June 7 and June 9 DOD Orders was the label “THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.” Opp. at 17. True enough. But an interpretation of § 12406 that permits the President to federalize a state’s National Guard by typing the phrase “Through the Governor of [insert state here]” at the top of a document that the President never sends to the governor strains credibility, especially given that Congress specifically amended the statute to add the requirement that orders “shall be issued through the governors.” See Militia Act of 1908 § 3.
Created:
Posted in:
America still thinks it's a good idea to have millions of babies with no path to real assimilation.
I think its more a matter of how difficult it is to amend the constitution rather than it being that people thinking its a good idea.
Created:
It would be necessary to have another election after that. Too much time and money spent on elections. Also old people who are gonna die in a few months anyway (eg terminal cancer) can just push the button without much cost to their life experience whereas young people would have to pay a much higher price (eg 40 years+)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The 4th is an inclusive holiday. I dont have an issue with it. TBH I think the British monarchy does still create a lot of issues but it's a different subject. (eg "royal assent" is still required to pass legislation in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc., and the king is still commander in chief of the armed forces). Its not an American concern.
Liberty and justice. Liberty yes. Justice yes. Problem with justice these days is people tend to disagree about what is justice and what isnt. The whole "equity" thing turns into identity based grievances and spurious notions of collective responsibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It excludes heterosexuals because it is fundamentally a victimhood fantasy, not a celebration of sexuality. Heterosexuals (homospecial teleiophilic) aren't allowed because there is no victimhood history.
This is what is important here, I think. You know, overcoming the discriminatory history against the LGBTQ. Is this the way to go about doing it? Because pride is about saying that you're proud of something; That you think that you're better than others because of whatever. Why frame it that way? Equality should be the goal rather than superiority. Yet, people are always tempted by superiority. Perhaps that's the human condition and will never change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Bestiality and pedophilia did cross my mind but these aren't generally regarded as sexual orientations AFAIK. Like, I read here:
Sexual orientation is an enduring personal pattern of romantic attraction or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. Patterns are generally categorized under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,[1][2][3] while asexuality (experiencing no sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category.[4][5]
These other things aren't about which gender you find attractive. They are related to sexuality I suppose but the exclusionary lines are a odd. Like, the gay pedophiles would be celebrated for being gay, not for being pedophiles while the heterosexual pedophiles are left out of the celebration. The issue and point of shame and stigma has to do with the pedophilia far more than the sexual orientation of it. Bestiality would have the same issue.
Issue with these groups is that while the sexual attraction itself is a benign it is when it's acted upon that it can be damaging, especially with the pedophiles because then the suffering is done to children rather than animals. It can be potentially dangerous to normalize these sort of sexual ideation because it may lead to increased offending. Though, if they just want to get off to comics or computer generated pornography or something, that seems pretty harmless to me.
Also you haven't answered the question. Why exclude heterosexuals from the celebration? Or asexuals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There are others that are not celebrated.
Same question then with respect to them. Who would those be though? Asexuals? I can't imagine much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@LucyStarfire
In this case the only sexual orientation that isnt celebrated is heterosexual.No, it isn't.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't 'think their 'intention was divide and rule,I think they just thought there are a lot of people and groups who deserved recognition.
I dont really think that is the intention either. It ends up being a consequence in some situations though.
The problem with choosing what we celebrate and what we dont celebrate is that it sends a message that such and such groups deserve to be celebrated while others do not. For example, we celebrate Christmas but we do not celebrate the holiest days of other religions. This takes the position that Christian religions are more deserving of recognition and celebration than other religions and it operates to place Christians in a position of superiority over the others.
The same thing happens with pride month. We celebrate these sexual orientations and desires but we do not celebrate other ones. It is to communicate that "This group deserves to be celebrated and others do not." In this case the only sexual orientation that isnt celebrated is heterosexual.
Of course, there is a long history of problems, shame and stigma associated with the lgbt people that have to be addressed. Yet, this isnt really the way I would go about doing this. Rather than saying, you know, that "You should be proud to be this" we should say "You arent your sexual orientation. You are [NAME]; You are an American; You are welcome; and you are one of us."
Created:
I had a dream that I impregnated a catholic girl and she then gave birth to the severed head of the pope. I dont know what it means but it seems like a good artistic illustration.
Created:
Posted in:
A moderator should be dry, dispassionate and have decisions that are objectively demonstrable under the standards. A moderator should act with complete disinterest and his decisions should not be made according to anything other than reports submitted and standards given. Such a moderator is almost computer-like in his decisions, logical, rational, and predictable. This is important because then the users themselves are able to predict with confidence what the moderator is going to do. They will be able to know based on the information presented to them what content is going to get moderated and what isnt.
Created:
Posted in:
I dont see the purpose of fomenting various identities by celebrating such and such while declining to celebrate others. The object should be to foster a unifying American identity rather than to divide us in to groups. Unless, of course, you want to divide and rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
I'm ok with discussion on the decision. I just don't want this to devolve into personal attacks and insults. I opened the thread because I knew there would want to be some discussion on it.
The post is pretty general and lacking in the specifics necessary to have such a discussion. Though, you did say that you were concerned about things devolving in to personal attacks. I suppose perhaps that is the reason that details are low.
Well, if that's what happens then you can police it. This is partly what moderation is for. Otherwise the situation is not to have anything to talk about I guess. That is unless AR wants to provide details? Im not seeing much from his end either.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
The estimates you are using are speculative and put out by the managerial elite who are very pissed they are losing power . Notice how they have to use weasel words like "we estimate loss of resources for the poor"
They're put out by the congressional budget office. This is probably the best source there is. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office
The tax deduction for tips and overtime pay is probably a good start but its not a very big impact. Seems more like throwing a bone than actually giving a shit. What Id like to see is an elimination of social security and medicare taxes on wages and have the funding loss replaced by increasing the federal income tax (ie shift the tax burden from a regressive tax on labor to a progressive tax on all income sources, especially unearned income like interest, dividends, capital gains etc)
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I said "If he signs the bill rather than vetos it then he's doing it."That still presupposed it passes the Senate without alteration, so, you're still pre-supposing
I'd imagined they'd get something passed. It does keep changing.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Do presidents sign bills before they are approved by the Senate? No. Why are you rushing the calendar? Got a house fire?
I said "If he signs the bill rather than vetos it then he's doing it."
This contemplates that I do not think he is responsible unless and until the bill has his signature on it. I'm not rushing to judgment.
Edit: I actually heard some reports where Trump told GOP "Don't fuck with medicaid." I liked that.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
he's raising taxes on the poorThat would be congress, but citation please.
If he signs the bill rather than vetos it then he's doing it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Just going to stop here. You can't believe just everything CNN says. He eliminated taxes on tips which is not something that would apply to millionaires but the tax cuts that benefit even the wealthy do not cause the poor to pay more taxes so they aren't harmed. The bill also listed no cut to the Medicare budget. You might see alterations in policy to eliminate fraud but it's budget actually increased so it means more care and more people that Medicare can sustainabley help
I agree don't believe CNN. I do believe CBO though:
Estimated EffectsCBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amountequal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of theincome distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result oflosses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP (see the figure).3By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent forhouseholds in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainlybecause of reductions in they taxes they owe. The distributional effects varythroughout the 10-year projection period as different components of thelegislation are phased in and out.(Page 3, emphasis added)
In other words, tax cuts for the rich paid for by reductions in funding for the poor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well I was confining discussion to 18 USC §2383. That part of the pdf goes in to pretty good detail about it. The more interesting thing I read was the argument that an insurrection is usualky against an established authority and that Trump was head of the fed gov at the time it raises the question about whether what he did would constitute insurrection, provided that all the other requirements were satisfied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Try page 61 section E "other charges"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So what?If intellectual honesty doesn't matter, then nothing.
I mean, it's user generated forum content. My expectations are pretty low.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The issues with insurrection charges are probably similar in the other cases (ie why prosecutor would dismiss such charges)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Im not sure how familiar you are with criminal proceedings. Usually the DAs will want to prosecute the charges that are easiest to prove and most often charges get plea bargained. Charges for insurrection under 18 USC §2383 may run in to legal problems. The whole thing was an attack but seemed like a disorganized riot or an angry mob. This may not satisfy the intended meaning of insurrection or rebellion under the statute. Thats what I would imagine the reason could be, but I havent looked at the court cases to see what happened with them. Even if I did look at the records Im probably not going to see what was going on in the DAs head. This would all come from the same DAs office, although separate state level charges (or DC federal enclave charges) can make a different DA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Since there are no convictions, it didn't happen, did it?
That's your argument, right? That the absence of convictions demonstrates that the crimes didn't happen. This is something so well-known to be untrue that I don't believe you made the argument in good faith. How could you? You're smarter than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
He changes the subject nearly everytime I or anyone else hits back with a substantive answer on pretty much anything.
So what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So he changes the subject too much then? You have damages.
Created:
Posted in:
From a statistical standpoint randomly encountering a bear in the woods is far more likely to lead to death or serious injury than randomly encountering a man in the woods. Women have learned to fear men but have not learned to fear bears so much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
He who does not work, neither shall he eat
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Since there are no convictions, it didn't happen, did it?
And OJ didn't do it.
Created:
Posted in:
Probably hid that along with him losing his marbles. The plan to hide shit failed due to the debate. Oh well.
Created: