• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump hints at defunding UC Berkeley

Mac77 said:
Worse than denying the first amendment rights of a conservative speaker and the loss of federal funds for berkley?

I don't think so
Click to expand...


Trump is wrong.

Moreover, throwing in the campus cops would have mixed nitro and glycerin and the body count would have gone from zero to who knows what while even one is unacceptable. Bodily injuries to rioters and police alike would likely have become the rule as the risk of serious injury would suddenly have become present whereas it had not been present as the situation existed and closed out.

The First Amendment continues to exist both despite and because of this guy who was appearing on campus to present extreme views held by only a few. So I'd reiterate the First Amendment continues to protect speech not riots as no one posting to the thread has supported the violence that occurred at UC Berkeley.

Trump knows nothing about it or the discussion. His advisers do not care. Trumpbots simply continue to fall into line.
 
Tangmo said:
Trump is wrong.

Moreover, throwing in the campus cops would have mixed nitro and glycerin and the body count would have gone from zero to who knows what

while even one is unacceptable. Bodily injuries to rioters and police alike would likely have become the rule as the risk of serious injury would suddenly have become present whereas it had not been present as the situation existed and closed out.

The First Amendment continues to exist both despite and because of this guy who was appearing on campus to present extreme views held by only a few. So I'd reiterate the First Amendment continues to protect speech not riots as no one posting to the thread has supported the violence that occurred at UC Berkeley.

Trump knows nothing about it or the discussion. His advisers do not care. Trumpbots simply continue to fall into line.
Click to expand...

If the body count is militant George Soros employees in black masks they will not be missed by me

If the cops attempt to arrest them any they resist then they brought it on themselves
 
Mac77 said:
If the body count is militant George Soros employees in black masks they will not be missed by me

If the cops attempt to arrest them any they resist then they brought it on themselves
Click to expand...


Ah yes, George Soros who's always hovering out there somewhere by the accounts of the right wing.

And now we get the everpresent but always unseen George Soros tossed in while omitting that Berkeley campus police as presented in the photo were no better equipped or protected than the typical rioter. In other words there would have been bodily harm and bodily injury to each side of a greatly larger riot that likely would have occurred had the campus cops been committed to the fight.

No one posting to the thread supports the rioters at UC Berkeley.
 
Tangmo said:
Trump is wrong.

Moreover, throwing in the campus cops would have mixed nitro and glycerin and the body count would have gone from zero to who knows what while even one is unacceptable. Bodily injuries to rioters and police alike would likely have become the rule as the risk of serious injury would suddenly have become present whereas it had not been present as the situation existed and closed out.

The First Amendment continues to exist both despite and because of this guy who was appearing on campus to present extreme views held by only a few. So I'd reiterate the First Amendment continues to protect speech not riots as no one posting to the thread has supported the violence that occurred at UC Berkeley.

Trump knows nothing about it or the discussion. His advisers do not care. Trumpbots simply continue to fall into line.
Click to expand...

Milo isn't exactly an extremist. Most of his views are pretty mainstream. In fact, the majority of the hatred for him are his views on PC culture and Islam which aren't even views that are isolated to left or right. Most of the stuff he speaks about I have heard Bill Maher make many of the same comments. If you take away the comedy and vulgarity, he is actually making valid arguments to support his views. If people take issue with him they should invite him to debate.
 
tres borrachos said:
Okay, since you're obsessing with me today, I'll acknowledge this post. And tell you once again since you didn't get it the first 10 times - when you have some evidence that the UC Berkeley students were the ones rioting and looting, please post it here. I haven't seen any yet.
Click to expand...



I did, multiple times... here is some more:



Berkeley Riots: Inside the Campus Showdown Over Free Speech - Rolling Stone

"in order to avoid police recognition and appear as a cohesive group – they have been depicted as being from out of town and unrelated to the UC Berkeley community. Yet Rolling Stone spoke to one participant who said they graduated from the university and cited not only fears that a rising far right could bring about more "xenophobia, misogyny and [white] ethno-nationalism" but also anger and disappointment directly pointed at the university's administration."



https://itsgoingdown.org/beating-milo-how-berkeley-defeated-alt-rights-biggest-troll/

"If you were involved last night, thank you. I’ve never felt safer on campus than I did when you walked in! It felt so affirming for someone to stand up against misogyny on a campus that blames rape victims not perpetrators, and protects sexual harassers. If the antifas hadn’t come, Milo would have endangered my undocumented students, so I am so grateful!
– PhD candidate / Graduate Instructor at UC Berkeley (name withheld)"



https://itsgoingdown.org/beating-milo-how-berkeley-defeated-alt-rights-biggest-troll/
"All of the statements from the officials above couldn’t be any further from the truth. Of course there were students engaging in militant and combative tactics that night. Some of those students were dressed in black, but a lot of them weren’t. Of course one can be an anarchist and a student at UC Berkeley at the same time, regardless of what clothing you’re wearing at any given moment. As far as Robert Reich never having seen these people before? He’s an idiot and he’s full of ****. I myself have taken his class."
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I did, multiple times... here is some more:



Berkeley Riots: Inside the Campus Showdown Over Free Speech - Rolling Stone

"in order to avoid police recognition and appear as a cohesive group – they have been depicted as being from out of town and unrelated to the UC Berkeley community. Yet Rolling Stone spoke to one participant who said they graduated from the university and cited not only fears that a rising far right could bring about more "xenophobia, misogyny and [white] ethno-nationalism" but also anger and disappointment directly pointed at the university's administration."



https://itsgoingdown.org/beating-milo-how-berkeley-defeated-alt-rights-biggest-troll/

"If you were involved last night, thank you. I’ve never felt safer on campus than I did when you walked in! It felt so affirming for someone to stand up against misogyny on a campus that blames rape victims not perpetrators, and protects sexual harassers. If the antifas hadn’t come, Milo would have endangered my undocumented students, so I am so grateful!
– PhD candidate / Graduate Instructor at UC Berkeley (name withheld)"



https://itsgoingdown.org/beating-milo-how-berkeley-defeated-alt-rights-biggest-troll/
"All of the statements from the officials above couldn’t be any further from the truth. Of course there were students engaging in militant and combative tactics that night. Some of those students were dressed in black, but a lot of them weren’t. Of course one can be an anarchist and a student at UC Berkeley at the same time, regardless of what clothing you’re wearing at any given moment. As far as Robert Reich never having seen these people before? He’s an idiot and he’s full of ****. I myself have taken his class."
Click to expand...

One participant who graduated from the university isn't a current student.

A "name withheld" isn't a student I can confirm.
 
tres borrachos said:
One participant who graduated from the university isn't a current student.

A "name withheld" isn't a student I can confirm.
Click to expand...



So close your eyes... the obvious answer is that all those college age looking kids, who attend a college known for this sort of shennenigans was most likely not college kids but unkown actors who never, or only FORMERLY went to uc berkeley.


yeah that's logical. /facepalm



And I'm giving you pro-violence sources. double /facepalm
 
Nap said:
Milo isn't exactly an extremist. Most of his views are pretty mainstream. In fact, the majority of the hatred for him are his views on PC culture and Islam which aren't even views that are isolated to left or right. Most of the stuff he speaks about I have heard Bill Maher make many of the same comments. If you take away the comedy and vulgarity, he is actually making valid arguments to support his views. If people take issue with him they should invite him to debate.
Click to expand...


As you may well know Yiannopoulos in debate events fares well generally in respect of peace and order but his diatribe speeches leave a great deal to be desired.

UC Berkeley began the Free Speech Movement some 50 years ago so this does not stop it. Comparing and contrasting the then free speech leader Mario Savio to Milo Yiannopoulos leaves no doubt we're better off in the traditions established by Mario and his generation than we are with this guy Milo and his gangs that now have a thug of their own in the White House.

Someone said it better than I, so I quote him here and now....


Where Mario Savio was generous, thoughtful and deep, Milo is selfish, materialistic and shallow. He is not merely a political speaker coming to present a point of view many find offensive. He harasses. He calls out his marks in his speeches. He encourages informing on “illegals”. In this case, the University did the right thing. The university had to ask what risks were raised by having him speak on campus.

President Trump could have called for non-violence and deplored, without hyperbole, the tiny minority who resorted to violence. He could have welcomed the overwhelming majority of students and community members who came out to protest peacefully the presence of Yiannopoulos. He could have applauded the University’s decision not to censor the speech and to provide resources for security.

Instead, the president presented an obviously false picture of what happened and seemed to intimidate the university – indeed, all universities. He took what should have been a national teachable moment about both free speech and smart ways to reject hateful speech, and he appropriated it for narrow political ends.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...o-yiannopolis-berkeley-california-free-speech


The concern of many Americans is real that Donald Trump is the first and the uniquely American fascist.
 
Tangmo said:
As you may well know Yiannopoulos in debate events fares well generally in respect of peace and order but his diatribe speeches leave a great deal to be desired.

UC Berkeley began the Free Speech Movement some 50 years ago so this does not stop it. Comparing and contrasting the then free speech leader Mario Savio to Milo Yiannopoulos leaves no doubt we're better off in the traditions established by Mario and his generation than we are with this guy Milo and his gangs that now have a thug of their own in the White House.

Someone said it better than I, so I quote him here and now....


Where Mario Savio was generous, thoughtful and deep, Milo is selfish, materialistic and shallow. He is not merely a political speaker coming to present a point of view many find offensive. He harasses. He calls out his marks in his speeches. He encourages informing on “illegals”. In this case, the University did the right thing. The university had to ask what risks were raised by having him speak on campus.

President Trump could have called for non-violence and deplored, without hyperbole, the tiny minority who resorted to violence. He could have welcomed the overwhelming majority of students and community members who came out to protest peacefully the presence of Yiannopoulos. He could have applauded the University’s decision not to censor the speech and to provide resources for security.

Instead, the president presented an obviously false picture of what happened and seemed to intimidate the university – indeed, all universities. He took what should have been a national teachable moment about both free speech and smart ways to reject hateful speech, and he appropriated it for narrow political ends.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...o-yiannopolis-berkeley-california-free-speech


The concern of many Americans is real that Donald Trump is the first and the uniquely American fascist.
Click to expand...

I do agree that goes to far but that is the purpose of his speeches. He believes that in order to fight outrage culture you have to be outrageous. Free speech is easy to defend when it speech you agree with, it is speech you find abhorrent that tests your principles.

I wasn't there but going by the videos I have seen and the words of the person who organized the protest, it wasn't a minority there to protest violently. She stated that they were unified in doing everything possible in order to shut down his speech and that this protest was a model for how future protests should be. She is actively inciting violence as a means to suppress free speech.
 
Nap said:
I do agree that goes to far but that is the purpose of his speeches. He believes that in order to fight outrage culture you have to be outrageous. Free speech is easy to defend when it speech you agree with, it is speech you find abhorrent that tests your principles.

I wasn't there but going by the videos I have seen and the words of the person who organized the protest, it wasn't a minority there to protest violently. She stated that they were unified in doing everything possible in order to shut down his speech and that this protest was a model for how future protests should be. She is actively inciting violence as a means to suppress free speech.
Click to expand...


Trump is wrong in his shotgun blast approach to the UC Berkeley riot by a small handful of anarchists and nihilists. The university is responsible, yes, however, trying to penalize the university campus as Trump is blathering that he might do, is a blow against free speech.

Political speech in USA has always been protected as privileged speech in both the Constitution and in the courts. Political free speech is free only when the most abhorrent person can say freely the most offensive things without being incendiary.

In this UC Berkeley instance, the campus police were inadequate to the task yet the university did not want the grounds invaded by municipal or state police from the supporting community. So this is a tough nut to crack as universities throughout the USA have seen the awful posture of Potus on the issues, i.e., he is only punitive and forbidding while also sounding foreboding.
 
Tangmo said:
Trump is wrong in his shotgun blast approach to the UC Berkeley riot by a small handful of anarchists and nihilists. The university is responsible, yes, however, trying to penalize the university campus as Trump is blathering that he might do, is a blow against free speech.

Political speech in USA has always been protected as privileged speech in both the Constitution and in the courts. Political free speech is free only when the most abhorrent person can say freely the most offensive things without being incendiary.

In this UC Berkeley instance, the campus police were inadequate to the task yet the university did not want the grounds invaded by municipal or state police from the supporting community. So this is a tough nut to crack as universities throughout the USA have seen the awful posture of Potus on the issues, i.e., he is only punitive and forbidding while also sounding foreboding.
Click to expand...

I agree that the jump to defund them is not the best approach and he should start with an investigation and help implement ways to help prevent actions like this in the future.

Saying this riot was a "small handful of anarchists" is simply not factual. Watch the video I linked and read the article I presented. There were alumni, staff, and yes UC Berkeley students not only cheering on the violence but participating in the riots. Those are statements from the organizer of the event and actual participants.
 
Nap said:
I agree that the jump to defund them is not the best approach and he should start with an investigation and help implement ways to help prevent actions like this in the future.

Saying this riot was a "small handful of anarchists" is simply not factual. Watch the video I linked and read the article I presented. There were alumni, staff, and yes UC Berkeley students not only cheering on the violence but participating in the riots. Those are statements from the organizer of the event and actual participants.
Click to expand...


The common characteristics of the rioters are of anarchy, nihilism, thrill, adventure and the like, and perhaps at best the political motive in this instance of stop or retard Trump. Politically violent types right or left know they separate themselves from the mainstream of the society and the culture as well as the law.

Trump only aggravates the antagonisms as would an "investigation" as proposed and as presented in the post. The situation needs to de-escalate not to escalate.

A truth and reconciliation commission approach locally and among given states might get it all out on the table so that the playing field might be more clearly marked and be made more level besides. As matters presently exist, Trump has the power of the state and the people who oppose him and his cohorts have only the power of the people who are the nevertrumpers.
 
Tangmo said:
The common characteristics of the rioters are of anarchy, nihilism, thrill, adventure and the like, and perhaps at best the political motive in this instance of stop or retard Trump. Politically violent types right or left know they separate themselves from the mainstream of the society and the culture as well as the law.

Trump only aggravates the antagonisms as would an "investigation" as proposed and as presented in the post. The situation needs to de-escalate not to escalate.

A truth and reconciliation commission approach locally and among given states might get it all out on the table so that the playing field might be more clearly marked and be made more level besides. As matters presently exist, Trump has the power of the state and the people who oppose him and his cohorts have only the power of the people who are the nevertrumpers.
Click to expand...

The problem is this situation has been escalating over the past year. If this were an isolated instance then I would agree but it has been an ever increasing problem that has gone out of control. I do believe the state of California ultimately should be spearheading any corrective actions and Trump should be on standby until the state itself calls for assistance (same with the violence in Chicago). I look at Trump's tweet as a threat to get everything in order before he has to get involved, would have been better had he said it with a bit more tact but a filter is something Trump is obviously lacking.
 
Nap said:
The problem is this situation has been escalating over the past year. If this were an isolated instance then I would agree but it has been an ever increasing problem that has gone out of control. I do believe the state of California ultimately should be spearheading any corrective actions and Trump should be on standby until the state itself calls for assistance (same with the violence in Chicago). I look at Trump's tweet as a threat to get everything in order before he has to get involved, would have been better had he said it with a bit more tact but a filter is something Trump is obviously lacking.
Click to expand...



The federal government has no police or enforcement power or authority over the numerous city-states, such as the Greater San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, or the Chicago Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, except as specified in the Constitution and as itemized by Scotus. If a county clerk is for instance in violation of the Constitution, the federal courts with their U.S. Marshals can and did intervene. Likewise, if a fascist might be denied free speech, the federal government can and has intervened -- but almost exclusively in instances where local or state authorities have failed in one way or the other.

However, absent specific federal authority as provided in the Constitution and in the laws, the federal government has always yielded to the authority of the state over matters of crime and civil law. An exception would be when the feds are requested by the state authority, or perhaps the local authority via the state government. This has been the rule, unless Potus declares a State of Emergency to exist in the place based on national security -- and predicated in the law and the Constitution.

Given Donald Trump knows nothing about SMSA, state vs federal authority, the Constitution or the laws pertaining to civil disturbance or having to do with the public safety or welfare, he'd need to stay out of matters such as the riot at UC Berkeley among the others you vaguely reference. The Berkeley situation was handled comparatively well by local and state authorities who exhibited a model of excellent horse sense and judgement. The feds from Washington would have only mucked it up -- severely and predictably.

Further, we would indeed have a Constitutional Crisis if the governor of a state activated the National Guard which he/she commands but then the Commander in Chief in the White House federalized it, as he has the absolute authority to do, but then again the National Guard of the particular state declined the order of the CinC to instead remain under the sole command of its governor who is its original commander (dating back since colonial times). Or if a significant part of the state's National Guard did this or anything like it. We should be cautious not to invite any such scenario(s) in any particular or given sovereign state. This is the case whether it be the state's official National Guard militia, or its semi-military law enforcement personnel at the local, county or state level respectively or inclusively.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
However, absent specific federal authority as provided in the Constitution and in the laws, the federal government has always yielded to the authority of the state over matters of crime and civil law. An exception would be when the feds are requested by the state authority, or perhaps the local authority via the state government. This has been the rule, unless Potus declares a State of Emergency to exist in the place based on national security -- and predicated in the law and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This was pretty much was what I was saying. Trump should stay out of it to give the state the opportunity to correct the issue, but be prepared should the state call and ask for his assistance.

It is the same situation in Chicago only worse. Trump shouldn't be threatening to send federal agents but letting them know that if needed he will support them if they feel that they need assistance.
 
Tangmo said:
The federal government has no police or enforcement power or authority over the numerous city-states, such as the Greater San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, or the Chicago Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, except as specified in the Constitution and as itemized by Scotus. If a county clerk is for instance in violation of the Constitution, the federal courts with their U.S. Marshals can and did intervene. Likewise, if a fascist might be denied free speech, the federal government can and has intervened -- but almost exclusively in instances where local or state authorities have failed in one way or the other.

However, absent specific federal authority as provided in the Constitution and in the laws, the federal government has always yielded to the authority of the state over matters of crime and civil law. An exception would be when the feds are requested by the state authority, or perhaps the local authority via the state government. This has been the rule, unless Potus declares a State of Emergency to exist in the place based on national security -- and predicated in the law and the Constitution.

Given Donald Trump knows nothing about SMSA, state vs federal authority, the Constitution or the laws pertaining to civil disturbance or having to do with the public safety or welfare, he'd need to stay out of matters such as the riot at UC Berkeley among the others you vaguely reference. The Berkeley situation was handled comparatively well by local and state authorities who exhibited a model of excellent horse sense and judgement. The feds from Washington would have only mucked it up -- severely and predictably.

Further, we would indeed have a Constitutional Crisis if the governor of a state activated the National Guard which he/she commands but then the Commander in Chief in the White House federalized it, as he has the absolute authority to do, but then again the National Guard of the particular state declined the order of the CinC to instead remain under the sole command of its governor who is its original commander (dating back since colonial times). Or if a significant part of the state's National Guard did this or anything like it. We should be cautious not to invite any such scenario(s) in any particular or given sovereign state. This is the case whether it be the state's official National Guard militia, or its semi-military law enforcement personnel at the local, county or state level respectively or inclusively.
Click to expand...

Also, I wouldn't say they handled it well at all. There was only 1 arrest with several people assaulted and over 100k in damage.

The fact that the organizer of the protest is openly calling for more violence and has not been arrested is another issue.
 
It appears they have already called in for the FBI to join in the investigation
 
Nap said:
Also, I wouldn't say they handled it well at all. There was only 1 arrest with several people assaulted and over 100k in damage.

The fact that the organizer of the protest is openly calling for more violence and has not been arrested is another issue.
Click to expand...



Apparently it needs to be reiterated that to throw in the campus cops would have mixed nitro and glycerin. The body count would have gone from zero to who knows what while even one is unacceptable. Bodily injuries to rioters and police alike would have likely become the rule as the risk of serious injury would suddenly have become present whereas it had not been present as the situation had existed and was allowed to close out.

The local and state authorities showed good horse sense in not escalating an already ongoing and apparently planned riot. They used good judgement and applied it in the primary interest of precluding or preventing bodily harm.

Property needs to be respected and protected but the safety of both the citizens and the law enforcement authorities is of the paramount concern. Had the rioters been focused on or determined to harm people, then we could be confident the authorities would have responded differently. As it was, a few innocent people were harmed, none seriously.

If someone in particular identified from a distance has not been arrested by local, county or state authorities, then that would be a matter, if accurate, between the home authorities and the citizens of the communit(ies) that might be affected. Donald Trump acting on his own could not locate a McDonald's in Berkeley, California so he definitely needs to keep his nose out of it unless he might be invited and escorted.
 
Nap said:
It appears they have already called in for the FBI to join in the investigation
Click to expand...



Not by much as the locals and the state seem to have a handle on it...

The FBI on Wednesday responded to an email from Berkeleyside requesting information. It confirmed it was in contact with both the Berkeley police and UCPD, but would not confirm or deny an ongoing investigation about the violence that erupted at the protests. The FBI’s Prentice Danneriii also noted, by email, that the FBI does “not open investigations based on First Amendment activities.”

It was reported on Monday that an employee of the university Ian Dabney Miller, took part in the in the riots, when he uploaded pictures on Tweeter bragging about his involvement. UC Berkeley spokesperson addressed the students in an email: “The campus is aware of the allegations involving someone who is a current member of the university’s workforce, UCPD is working in close concert with the FBI on an ongoing investigation into the matter.”

Since the news of the riot appeared, the university persistently contradicted the students’ involvement in the riots, instead they were initiated by “armed individuals in ‘ninja-like’ uniforms, using paramilitary tactics.”

FBI investigating identities of black-clad UC Berkeley rioters — Berkeleyside


Donald Trump is an ignoramus who doesn't know where to find the Constitution in Washington DC so he definitely and positively needs to keep his nose out of this and anything of the sort like or similar to it. Trump talking about defunding any university he does not like is both willful and OTT. Neither is the FBI director a neutral party and given Yiannopoulos is Stephen Bannon's successor at Breitbart one can see how and why this has gone OTT.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
The federal government has no police or enforcement power or authority over the numerous city-states, such as the Greater San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, or the Chicago Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, except as specified in the Constitution and as itemized by Scotus. If a county clerk is for instance in violation of the Constitution, the federal courts with their U.S. Marshals can and did intervene. Likewise, if a fascist might be denied free speech, the federal government can and has intervened -- but almost exclusively in instances where local or state authorities have failed in one way or the other.

However, absent specific federal authority as provided in the Constitution and in the laws, the federal government has always yielded to the authority of the state over matters of crime and civil law. An exception would be when the feds are requested by the state authority, or perhaps the local authority via the state government. This has been the rule, unless Potus declares a State of Emergency to exist in the place based on national security -- and predicated in the law and the Constitution.

Given Donald Trump knows nothing about SMSA, state vs federal authority, the Constitution or the laws pertaining to civil disturbance or having to do with the public safety or welfare, he'd need to stay out of matters such as the riot at UC Berkeley among the others you vaguely reference. The Berkeley situation was handled comparatively well by local and state authorities who exhibited a model of excellent horse sense and judgement. The feds from Washington would have only mucked it up -- severely and predictably.

Further, we would indeed have a Constitutional Crisis if the governor of a state activated the National Guard which he/she commands but then the Commander in Chief in the White House federalized it, as he has the absolute authority to do, but then again the National Guard of the particular state declined the order of the CinC to instead remain under the sole command of its governor who is its original commander (dating back since colonial times). Or if a significant part of the state's National Guard did this or anything like it. We should be cautious not to invite any such scenario(s) in any particular or given sovereign state. This is the case whether it be the state's official National Guard militia, or its semi-military law enforcement personnel at the local, county or state level respectively or inclusively.
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem there. If a state's national guard troops were ever to defy a U.S. President's order to place them under federal control, the President might just stop trying. Instead, he might directly order regular U.S. troops to carry out whatever mission he might assign them. This of course could be the same mission the national guard troops had declined to peform.

Any personal knowledge President Trump may lack about the legal issues you mention would not require him "to stay out of matters such as the riot at UC Berkeley. He can at any time draw on the advice of the most skilled federal lawyers. If any person's civil rights were being violated, they would tell him, the President could order his Justice Dept. to investigate and take appropriate actions. There are very few rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments that any state is free to ignore. With few exceptions, states must guarantee the protections of the Bill of Rights.
 
matchlight said:
I don't see any problem there. If a state's national guard troops were ever to defy a U.S. President's order to place them under federal control, the President might just stop trying. Instead, he might directly order regular U.S. troops to carry out whatever mission he might assign them. This of course could be the same mission the national guard troops had declined to peform.

Any personal knowledge President Trump may lack about the legal issues you mention would not require him "to stay out of matters such as the riot at UC Berkeley. He can at any time draw on the advice of the most skilled federal lawyers. If any person's civil rights were being violated, they would tell him, the President could order his Justice Dept. to investigate and take appropriate actions. There are very few rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments that any state is free to ignore. With few exceptions, states must guarantee the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


Concerning the first graf, any citizen would recognize any such event as a Constitutional Crisis. Further, anyone with a background in active duty military service (or in the law itself) would recognize such an event as a military mutiny. Either or both is a profoundly serious event that is characteristically extra-Constitutional.

The presumptive burden would be on the mutineers who would need to state in specific terms how their refusal of orders is consistent with their oath of service (which is indeed possible). The bottom line is that any such event would be a most serious breach of discipline that would require immediate attention and a resolution, not a wave of the hand while asking who else we got and simultaneously asking if they might be willing to obey orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom