California Gov. Gavin Newsom just lost a major ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that President Donald Trump is likely to prevail in his deployment of National Guard troops. Newsom and various Democratic politicians have insisted that Trump’s order is unlawful and that Newsom has to agree to any request for deployment. The Ninth Circuit ruled on Thursday that Newsom does not have such a veto over deployments.
The Ninth Circuit blocked the injunction of District Court Judge Charles Breyer who suggested in open court that Trump was acting like another “King George.” He then wrote an opinion that included many Democratic talking points — suggesting, for example, that Trump was creating disorder by calling out the National Guard to deal with disorder. Breyer further indicated that the violence in Los Angeles was relatively minor, despite potentially deadly attacks on law enforcement, arson, and looting.
Breyer gave the Administration little time to appeal his ruling, but it was enough for the Ninth Circuit.
Title 10 provides:
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.
10 U.S.C. § 12406.
In his decision, Judge Breyer took the extreme position that Trump could not use subsection 3 if there was any possibility of executing federal laws absent the use of the National Guard troops:
[T]he statute does not allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws. Nor does the statute allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces some risk in executing the laws. . . . The statute requires that the President be “unable” to execute the laws of the United States. That did not happen here.
In its decision, the court rejected this premise and held that “Section 12406 does not have as a prerequisite that the President be completely precluded from executing the relevant laws of the United States in order to call members of the National Guard into federal service, nor does it suggest that activation is inappropriate so long as any continued execution of the laws is feasible.”
It concluded that “it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” in federalizing control of the guard. It also rejected Newsom’s claim of a veto on deployment.
Here is the opinion: 25-3727_order-for-pub
Obviously.
The “National” in National Guard is the first clue.
Secondly, states are not allowed to have their own militias. If they did, various states like California would have used them for fighting federal laws they don’t like, but with artillery and air.
Can you picture California’s nut case governor with is own state military?
The states can and do have a State Militia, albeit a somewhat neutered form of them. Don’t know how many as I didn’t bother to check all fifty. I’d be more concerned about what Obama the Second in Maryland might do with it than Newsom who can’t get out of his own way.
https://legalclarity.org/maryland-militia-structure-duties-and-legal-framework/
https://stateguard.cmd.ca.gov/public/
-Oddball
Yes, imagine if someone of a jihadi frame of mind became governor of a large state such as NY. Imagine what they could do with a full-blown military at their disposal. Our founding fathers were very wise indeed but they did not foresee the demographic shift that has happened when multitudes are being taught to hate this nation all the while partaking of the largesse that it has to offer to them.
This is not normal politics. In my view this is literally about national sovereignty similar to events leading to the Civil War.
Whoever made presidential level decisions in the Biden administration intentionally allowed tens of millions of documented foreign citizens to invade the country. They did so, I believe, as part of an evil and cynical strategy to dilute the votes of American citizens. This is being accomplished in two ways. First, those foreign invaders are having children. Those children become American citizens with the first breath they take on American soil. It’s a way for Democrats to offset the dwindling number of actual American births due to Democrat anti-reproduction policies (abortion, birth control, feminism, careerism, promoting and celebrating homosexuality and transgenderism, demonizing human reproduction to “save the planet”, etc.)
Second, the numbers are so large there is no way to remove most of them. Over the long term, those not deported WILL become US citizens.
It’s all part of Democrats evil and cynical strategy to dilute the votes of American citizens for power. Democrats rationally anticipate that once the foreign invaders are granted amnesty and citizenship, they will become grateful Democrat voters because Democrats were willing to dilute the votes of actual Americans for power.
Trump and Republicans are not informing the public about the enormous gravity of the situation. I’m not sure average Americans fully grasp it. It’s meant to result in a permanent Democrat majority. A hostile, national takeover. The numbers are so large there is no way to stop it using the normal political channels.
If people fully understand what is at stake – that the goal was always to give Democrats a permanent majority – then Americans have to make a choice. Are they willing to surrender and submit to a permanent Democrat majority, or do they want to take extra-judicial and extra-Constitutional steps to stop the takeover and preserve national sovereignty.
It is that simple. And that stark.
True
The federal government buildings in L.A. could not be protected by the LA.Police Department. The buildings were under assault by the rioters. Newsom said that the guard was not needed. Perhaps he should get on the same page with the police. “We don’t have s— under control,” a Los Angeles Police Department commander told me on Sunday. “It’s a godsend that the National Guard and the Marines are here.” Officers on the street felt the same way, though the LAPD forbids them to express that view in public, the commander said. What exactly does looting an Apple store have to do with stopping the arrest of illegal aliens who have committed crimes? All of it has little to do with arresting the poor down trodden but rather is simply the worship of the god of havoc. He says, pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name. But what’s puzzlin you is the nature of my game.
TiT,
Well said and great Rolling Stone reference!
Yet is was the population of CA and LA that put these incompetent progs in power, time and time again – they have no one to blame but themselves and now they want the saner, adult taxpayers of the entire nation to bail them out of their mess – I say NO WAY IN H*LL.
whimsicalmama,
And that is why the sane and normal people who can, are leaving the failed state of CA.
Escaping from LA and the rest of California
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3281568/escaping-la-and-rest-of-california/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
California says it lost $2 billion in state income taxes from earners leaving
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-says-it-lost-2-billion-state-income-taxes-earners-leaving
That is why it is a smart move to charge the vandals, thugs and rioters of federal crimes. Some have already FAFO.
Now the FBI and other federal law enforcement assets are now investigating the money and organizations behind the riots. These were not spontaneous.
Mayor Karen Bass also has a radical past and was heavily associated with Castro’s Cuba as a member of Venceremos Brigade and made numerous trips to Cuba, starting in 1973. When Castro died she made the following statement; “As Cuba begins nine days of mourning, I wish to express my condolences to the Cuban people and the family of Fidel Castro. The passing of the Comandante en Jefe is a great loss to the people of Cuba. I hope together, our two nations will continue on the new path of support and collaboration with one another, and continue in the new direction of diplomacy.”
Need one say more?
Top Homeland Security official says ‘foreign adversary’ possibly behind anti-ICE riots
https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/top-homeland-security-official-says-its-possible-foreign-adversary
And who didn’t see that as a possibility when old Joe and his puppet masters opened our borders for 4 years…
It is possible Newsom will ask for En Banc review.
This pannel favored Trump. But even the Biden appointee joined the majority.
The 9th circuit is full of nuts so Newsom MIGHT win in an en banc review,
My guess is this is now a dead issue – because the 9th circuit will refuse en banc review.
But it is not impossible for a larger pannel of left wing nuts to rule against Trump and force this to the supreme court.
But what is most disturbing is this was ALWAYS an idiotic challenge.
Presidents since George Washington have been using Troops to deal with Enforcement of Federal law in circumstances where that otherwise became impossible.
The Posse Comitas Act limited that but did not eliminate that.
There is no doubt that the president has the power to enforce federal laws, and to put down riots that prevent those laws from being executed.
The goal of the left and Newsom was NOT to thwart the use of the NG, but to thwart the enforcement of the INA by ICE and that was just not going to happen.
When people in LA started rioting and interfering with ICE – it was inevitable that if it got to SCOTUS – SCOTUS would provide some means for the president to restore order and enforce federal law.
There is no “People can riot, so long as the governor allows it” provision in the constitution.
The Ninth Circuit? Really? That is Gav’s go-to court to side with him. What a blow it must be to him! HAHAHAHAHAHA
This decision should have been a no brainer from the start.
None other than George Washington sent Troops to put down a tax rebellion in one of the states.
The Posse Comitas act limited the presidents authority to use the Army to deal with domestive issues.
Updates in 2021 and 2022 added the airforce and the navy.
But the National Guard has always been the military force reserved for dealing with domestic issues.
Lets presume that the 9th circuit ruled against the president, that would not have precluded the federal govenrment from explanding DEA, FBI, … to numbers sufficient from enforcing federal law.
It is far more efficient and wise to allow the National Guard to be used in limited capacities domestically on the rare occasions that is needed than to permantly increase federal law enforcement.
It is complete idiocy to beleive that SCOTUS would allow congress to pass laws, but make it impossible to enforce them.
ICE is acting lawfully – if you do not like that – CHANGE US IMMIGRATION LAW.
Riots and violence are interfering with their ability to enforce the law.
The constitution reuires that the president failthfully execute the laws of the land
That includes immigration law.
That reuires having the power to be able to do so.
The choices are simple – either the president can call up the NG, or the Posse Comitas act is unconstitutional and the president can call up the military – as Washington did.
Another Over Rule of another Left Wing Woke San Fran Judge by the Appeals Courts. Another Loss for the Left Wing Woke Hair Gel Gov Newscum and The Woke DEM Party. Pres, Trump had the authority and no matter how much the Left Wing Woke Media yelled and all their experts told us.
“Newscum”? Aren’t you an adult. /s
9 out of 10 LAPD police officers agree with the term, “Newscum.”
Chinese and Iranian meddling efforts buried by intelligence community during, after 2020 election
“The 2020 election ended with a Biden victory and a Trump defeat. But new details are emerging about foreign efforts to undermine Trump’s 2020 campaign — and about efforts by the intelligence community to bury the truth.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/chinese-influence-efforts-buried-and-iranian-meddling-downplayed-during
Foreign meddling? Unneeded when you’ve got Fani Willis around. Guffaw
“Chinese and Iranian meddling efforts buried by intelligence community during, after 2020 election”
Trump is now calling for a Special Prosecutor to investigate shenanigans in that election. And why not – the Dems sicced Robert Mueller on him with zero justification.
I prefer the “Navin Gruesome” variant, personally.
“. . . the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . . .” (JT)
A unanimous three-judge ruling that included two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee.
Great news.
What about state’s rights?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights
States’ rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution.
What about states rights ?
This case is about the enforcement of Immigration laws – which are constitutionally FEDERAL ONLY
The National Guard is itself a creation of federal law.
The Bill of rights reserves to the states all government powers NOT delegated to the federal, excluded to the states or inherently rights of the people.
There is no “states” rights conflict here.
Shouting “states rights” does not make a constitutionally federal issue into a state one.
Presuming the Civil war had not settled the issue of sucession – Newsome might have – with the assent of the state legislature chosen to have California Succeed.
But that is the only states rights issue.
“ This case is about the enforcement of Immigration laws – which are constitutionally FEDERAL ONLY
The National Guard is itself a creation of federal law.”
Wrong. This case is about using the NG to deal with rioters and protesters.
” This case is about using the NG to deal with rioters and protesters.”
Your rioters and protestors are deliberately interfering with the execution of Federal immigration law, moron.
The 9th Circuit! I would tell Gavin that is a done deal—you can’t get any farther left!
Professor Turley writes, “The Ninth Circuit blocked the injunction of District Court Judge Charles Breyer who suggested in open court that Trump was acting like another “King George.”
And Charles Breyer is acting like that other George, insurrectionist George Wallace.
when do we start PUNISHING the LAWLESS Judges doing these things?
Nice and very clear decision without splitting hairs like SCOTUS has done of late in many decisions. I do like, when possible, for courts to make clear decisions that settle the issue (unless an appeal is still possible). I hate it when a decision is avoided and just results in more litigation “to outline or fill in the full extent of a decision”. It just makes for interminable litigation. It’s almost like padding your hours or bills.
But…but…DEMOCRACY!!
🤣😂😉
Two points:
Liberals (I won’t say Democrats because it was the Democrats fighting integration) were (rightly) thrilled when Ike and JFK sent in the guard when DEMOCRAT governors Orval Faubus and George Wallace wouldn’t allow Black students to go to schools that were predominantly white and yet here they are saying that the president doesn’t have the power to send theGuard in without the governors assent. It is laughable.
My second point is this is the kind of political hackery of a decision that you get when the judge, Charles Breyer, is a pathetic soul looking to be a lefty hero because he is jealous of his brother, Stephen Breyer, who just happened to be a Justice on the Supreme Court.
” Ike and JFK sent in the guard when DEMOCRAT governors Orval Faubus and George Wallace wouldn’t allow Black students to go to schools that were predominantly white ”
Essentially correct. One tiny wrinkle is that the Arkansas NG had actually initially been called out by Faubus to *prevent* execution of the Brown v. Board of Education decision in Little Rock. Eisenhower took command of the Guard and set it to enforcement instead of obstruction.
The name is NATIONAL not STATE Guard.
So the president can deploy the national guard within a State on federal grounds such as immigration, border security, drug enforcement, other? Oh, ok. I get it now.
Although a self-evident finding, it is worth restating whenever the authority of the POTUS is questioned. This also has important implications for blue state governors and mayors who may think they, too, have the power to tell Trump to mind his own business. As it turns out, their business is his business. When they don’t do their business, he must step in to do it and to safeguard the people and preserve and defend democracy. He was elected by a majority of the people to do just that. Kudos for the Ninth Circuit!
JJC,
Well said!
Now we know why the “militia” in the Second Amendment is NOT the National Guard, despite decades of leftwing claims.
Interesting but I personally can never know because a person would need years of study regarding American history. Interesting…