- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
‘I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics,’ Republican candidate tells Fox’s Maria Bartiromo
…
“And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military,” he said.
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people who have come in, who are destroying our country.”
It isn’t clear under what circumstances Trump would view it justifiable to call in US troops against his own countrymen.
But his comments mark a baseless attack and a particularly hollow one coming from someone whose supporters violently attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to stop him from being thrown out of office three years ago.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
The oath is actually to the Constitution of the United States. So it’s not even the country or the government but the idea, the founding document.
Is it the current one, or the originalist one, or the supreme court interpretation one, or the cherry picked and misunderstood one, or?
Removed by mod
No, it’s a very serious question. What happens when Trump gives an illegal order, a soldier refuses to obey it, and is arrested? What do you think John Roberts’ SCOTUS will say? You think it’s too far-fetched for a 6-3 ruling saying “Well, the Constitution says that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces therefore there exists no mechanism nor rationale for any member of the armed services to disobey” to happen?
Hell, what do people think will happen if, let’s say hypothetically:
But nah, that would NEVER happen. And people totally wouldn’t brag about the military waiting to see how things shake out was their god given duty.
Actually, it could be even worse than that. Trump could theoretically order the military to not interfere at all.
In a context where the checks and balances and norms around separation of powers and jurisdiction functioned as intended instead of being undermined and co-opted, the SC normally does not intrude into UCMJ matters. But I’m also quite sure that won’t stop the Tribunal of Six, so who fuckin’ knows.
We are going back to absolute monarchies in which the king incarnated the law and couldn’t do anything illegal.
The Supreme Court already sent us back there.
The problem is that the current admin that was just given the power, thinks they’ll set a bad example if they actually use it. A more charitable take could be that, maybe they think if they don’t talk about it the orange moron will forget he’ll have the power too (he won’t).
The problem I think is more that the conservative majority in the court would never rule they apply to Democrats.
Lol, civil war then? Imagine trying to arrest the ones with the guns. I’d imagine a big, although still a minority, chunk of troops would immediately defect and form an insurgency under such actions.
Removed by mod
Speaking of bad-faith posters…
Removed by mod
You sure did
No, they’re saying that any law asking people to disobey the institutions propped up by that same law in case of them being unjust will always ring hollow, because the courts that decide if that point of legitimacy has been reached will be staffed by the very same people you’d be disobeying.
No court will rule that rebellion against the state is justified. It’s either ‘not legitimate yet, because other options are available’, or it’s too late, because independent courts have been abolished.
This is the correct answer.