The argument seems to be more of a no-confidence move because the Californians can't keep order. They'll presumably treat the wording seriously but I think the "form of rebellion" is more a jab at the people who keep harping on about insurrections. Looks like a bad argument from any angle I can think of (they aren't invited and there isn't an actual rebellion to put down).
That's from June 7th, before the deployment of Marines. It only justifies the federalization of the National Guard, but as far as that goes, it appears to be a very reasonable interpretation of the law:
Whenever...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 ... execute those laws.
Notably, it doesn't say the governor has the right to refuse those "orders". If the governor had that right, they would be requests, not orders.
A very interesting article about this situation from a Georgetown law professor was posted somewhere deep in this discussion and is well worth reading.
The professor is strongly opposed to the deployment, and calls it "dangerous" and "pernicious" among other things. Nonetheless, he "thinks the federal government has both the constitutional and statutory authority to override local and state governments when it comes to law and order" and that "this [clause] is better understood as a purely administrative provision than it is as giving a substantive veto to the governor."
According to Governor Newsom he wasn't communicated with at all.
In an interview with All Things Considered host Juana Summers, Newsom said the mobilization order was not done with communication to or approval by his office. [1]
As someone who knows absolutely nothing about what’s happening in LA, it is actually useful to hear what the govt is claiming as a justification, then the reader can judge how valid it is.
Not everyone will critically assess the validity of the government's claims. When the press repeats such statements without scrutiny or fact-checking, it does real harm. Many people will uncritically echo what the government says, simply because they already support them.
A statement like "The government is scrambling to justify an unnecessary escalation, driven solely by a president who has praised violent authoritarian leaders, by labeling it an 'insurrection.' When asked for evidence, officials mocked reporters and threatened to exclude them from future briefings." offers verifiable context and reflects the serious threat posed by a leader who appears intent on pushing the country toward chaos.
Sure, but this is HN. The level of critical thinking is far higher IMO.
I personally believe that especially on a forum such as this, it’s fine to expose the administrations claims to daylight and let them be examined and criticized and even mocked.
Is there an official definition? I'm not American but I'm looking at images of locals and foreign nationals burning down cities flying the Mexican flag. ChatGPT tells me the following:
> The authority for the President to use the military in cases of insurrection comes primarily from the Insurrection Act, codified in 10 U.S. Code §§ 251-255. This act provides the statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.
> When unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce federal laws in any state by ordinary judicial proceedings. (10 U.S.C. § 252)
> When an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy in a state hinders the execution of state and federal laws, depriving people of their constitutional rights, and the state authorities are unable, fail, or refuse to protect those rights. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
> When an insurrection opposes or obstructs the execution of U.S. laws or impedes the course of justice under those laws. (10 U.S.C. § 253)
The last time this Act was used was in 1992 during the Los Angeles riots and it withstood all legal contests. This time around it is a stated intent of these rioters to specifically obstruct federal law enforcement efforts. That's their stated goal which they are very consistent and very loud about in interviews. This clearly satisfies the criteria for the Insurrection Act.
I understand that this is a concerning action, but the law is black and white. If the U.S. and Congress and the House didn't want Presidents to have this power, the country has had more than 200 years to amend it.
> Kind of like using the Insurrection Act to suspend habeas corpus and then threatening judges if they dare to question its legality?
The President does not have a legal right to suspend habeas corpus. Only Congress.
> Or, one might argue, "petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form, lobbying politicians. Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition.
> No, a petition is a piece of paper or in verb form, lobbying politicians.
I would say that mass groups of people gathering on the streets protesting the same cause is a form of "lobbying politicians".
> Burning down cities and attacking officers does not fall under the definition.
Sure, if that's what is actually occurring. AFAICT they are mostly peaceful protests with a couple of examples of limited unlawful behavior but that's what the news is showing because burning cop cars make for good ratings.
It's not like the people of LA don't know how to put on a proper riot or anything...
I made a case and asked the other person if they had other information, ideas, or an argument. That's kind of how discussion used to work before we decided pithy soundbites was a suitable replacement for reasoned discussion.
>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
People can say whatever they want. Only violent actions qualify as insurrection.
"My Confederate flag. Blue, white, and red! That's my flag! Not this flag. Fuck this flag! I pledge allegiance to the Confederacy. Nobody else. Not this country."
We have seen what happens to the traitors flying the Confederate flag.
They are arguing there's an insurrenction in California.