Maybe this jerk really did learn something being a Constitutional lawyer. What he learned are the powers such as Patrick Henry foretold at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788:
[snip]
If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design; and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely — and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion — have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I cannot with patience think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of his army, to carry every thing before him; or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being ignominiously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your {60} President! we shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch: your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?
Very good post in a very good thread. BTTT!
No problema....all we have to do is change the locks in the WH....he'll never figure that one out.
What would happen is dependent upon which section of the U.S. Code that Obama cited as his authority to nationalize the Texas National Guard. Title 10 allows him complete authority and Gov. Perry cannot refuse. Title 32 allows him to nationalize only with Gov. Perry's approval.
Title 10 would require BO to put them on full-time, active-duty status paid for by the federal government. So far, he has't been able to get the money he's requested for Border Patrol. I doubt he'd get money to nationalize the Guard.