Posted on 06/12/2025 4:00:28 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
I wonder if this means they got a new memo?
They probably found out that few democrats could spell or pronounce oligarchy so they will try KING for awhile.
“In the lengthy hearing, Breyer directed most of his questioning to the Trump administration, which has cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code to justify the takeover of the National Guard. But that provision, the judge noted, requires that orders from the president “shall be issued through the governors of the States.” “
I believe there is a major misreading of the pertinent section. Not just by the judge but by many others. See below,
“…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”
For what it’s worth this is my reading on the above. The President (in the circumstances listed in the act) has permission to activate the NG. He is not required to do so. However the actual orders that come from that activation are to be made by the governors of the state. “Shall be issued through..” is not the same thing as requiring the consent of the governors nor is it the same thing as meaning the governor must initiate the order. It is (IMHO) a delegation by the President to the governor. The President may or may not activate the guard. When he chooses to do so than the governor shall order the guard to activate. He simply has no choice. He is acting by Presidential order. An action that would usually be done by federal orders is delegated to the state. Probably for reasons of expediency. Bottom line Trump does not need Newsom’s consent. Newsom however must order the activation of NG troops as per Trump’s order.
Notice too that it does not read “Orders for these purposes shall ONLY be issued through the governors of the states.” This means Trump is within his authority to bypass waiting for governors to issue the call up.
In addition “Shall be issued through.” does not have the same meaning as shall be issued by. In statutory language what comes first is the gist of the statute. What follows is dependent on what proceeds. This judge and others have come to the conclusion that Trump (or any President) only has permission to call up the NG if a governor gives the order. If that was true the “Governors shall...” section would come first, followed by “President may call.”
For some reason “Serfing USA” seems a very appropriate tune right now.
And then there’s King Biden (Obozo) who broke the law allowing, enabling and paying for the invasion of the American homeland.
So many scumbag judges have no idea what the constitution is, even though they swore to uphold it.
Activists are fanatics. “ A fanatic is someone who you can’t change their mind and they won’t change the subject.” -Winston Churchill
Trump is Hitler must not be working with the focus groups so they have to try something else.
>The judges’ game here is to force Trump to declare National State of Emergency where all things are permissible to the Executive.
We’re rapidly re-enacting the latter few decades of the Roman Republic. Like them, the government is hostile to the goals of the people and seeks to thwart or bury populist leaders.
Like them, with only strife and no earthly benefit for virtue, the people devolve into base habit and leaders serve only themselves.
What might have happened if a Julius had emerged right after the Gracchi instead of after decades more of decay?
What the h3ll is he talking about?
In his memo of June 7, 2025 President Trump cited the authority of 10 U.S.C. 12406 and no other statutory authority, stating "In light of these incidents and credible threats of continued violence, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406....
10 USC 12406: National Guard in Federal service: call
Text contains those laws in effect on June 8, 2025
From Title 10-ARMED FORCES
Subtitle E-Reserve Components
PART II-PERSONNEL GENERALLY
CHAPTER 1211-NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS IN FEDERAL SERVICE10 U.S.C. §12406. National Guard in Federal service: call
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.
(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1662(f)(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2994 ; amended Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(5), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440.
Charles Breyer? Who elected him?
^ Bottom line.
History of use of National Guard and Federal Troops
New York City Draft Riots (July 13-16, 1863)
Opposition to Civil War conscription sparked riots in New York City, primarily among Irish immigrants. Mobs attacked government buildings, looted, and targeted Black residents, killing at least 120. Federal troops (~4,000) from the Battle of Gettysburg restored order, killing dozens of rioters in street battles, one of the largest federal responses to urban unrest at the time.
Eutaw Riot, Alabama (1870)
The Ku Klux Klan attacked a Republican rally in Eutaw, Alabama, targeting Black voters. Federal troops (~500) restored order, an early use of federal force against racial violence in the Reconstruction-era South.
Coeur d’Alene Labor Confrontation, Idaho Silver Valley (1892, 1899)
Miners struck against harsh conditions in Idaho’s Silver Valley. In 1892, clashes with company guards led to ~1,000 federal troops suppressing unrest, arresting dozens. In 1899, miners dynamited the Bunker Hill mine, prompting 1,500 federal troops to declare martial law and detain hundreds, favoring corporate interests.
Pullman Strike (1894)
A nationwide railway strike disrupted commerce. President Cleveland deployed ~2,000 federal troops, primarily in Chicago, to break the strike, citing mail interference. Clashes killed over a dozen and led to hundreds of arrests, protecting industry.
1919 Anarchist Bombings (April-June 1919)
Galleanist anarchists targeted officials with 36 mail bombs in April, intercepted, and nine larger bombs on June 2 across eight cities (Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., New York City, Pittsburgh, Paterson, Newton). One bomber and one watchman died. The Bureau of Investigation (BOI) led a federal law enforcement response, creating a Radical Division under J. Edgar Hoover, without troop deployment.
Palmer Raids (November 1919-January 1920)
Fearing communist uprisings, Attorney General Palmer’s raids targeted radicals, detaining 3,000-10,000 across 33-36 cities, with 3,500 held. Federal BOI agents and local police, without National Guard, conducted warrantless raids, deporting 556, including Emma Goldman.
Centralia Riots, Washington (November 11, 1919)
The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) clashed with American Legion members in Centralia, Washington, killing six. Federal authorities arrested IWW leaders under anti-sedition laws, deporting some without troops or National Guard, targeting Wobblie organizing as a communist threat.
Wall Street Bombing (September 16, 1920)
A horse-cart bomb on Wall Street killed 38 and injured 300. Suspected Galleanists were investigated, but no arrests were made. The BOI led a federal law enforcement response without troops or National Guard.
Tulsa Race Massacre (May 31-June 1, 1921)
White mobs attacked Tulsa’s Black Greenwood District, killing 100-300 and burning 35 square blocks. The Oklahoma National Guard (~500 troops) interned Black residents, offering little protection. No federal troops were deployed, showing limited action against racial violence.
Sacco and Vanzetti Case (1920-August 23, 1927)
Italian anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were convicted in 1921 for a 1920 robbery and murder in Braintree, Massachusetts. Their execution on August 23, 1927, sparked riots in Boston and New York. Massachusetts Governor Alvan Fuller deployed 500 Massachusetts National Guard troops in Boston, with no federal troops involved. Over 100 arrests were made, with minor injuries. The Guard contained the unrest, reflecting state-led responses to anarchist-related violence.
1932 Bonus Army that was ejected form DC by federal forces led by Douglas MacArthur. (July 8, 1932)
Involved WWI veterans who marched on Washington, D.C., to demand early payment of their promised bonus, which was intended to be paid in 1945. As many as 40,000 veterans, their families, and supporters set up encampments in the city, and the situation escalated when President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to clear the protesters, leading to clashes and violence.
Little Rock Integration Crisis (September 4-25, 1957)
Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus deployed ~300 Arkansas National Guard troops to block nine Black students from entering Central High School, defying desegregation. President Eisenhower federalized the Guard and sent 1,000 troops from the 101st Airborne Division to escort the students. Federal forces stayed for months, preventing major violence, enforcing civil rights.
Ole Miss Riot, Mississippi (September 30-October 1, 1962)
White segregationists rioted against Black student James Meredith’s enrollment at the University of Mississippi, attacking marshals. Federal troops (3,000) and nationalized Mississippi National Guard (10,000) restored order after two deaths and hundreds of injuries, enforcing civil rights.
University of Alabama Stand (June 11, 1963)
Governor George Wallace blocked Black students from the University of Alabama. The Alabama National Guard (~500 federalized troops) forced Wallace to step aside without violence, reinforcing federal authority.
Selma to Montgomery March, Alabama (March 7-25, 1965)
Civil rights activists, led by Martin Luther King Jr., marched from Selma to Montgomery for voting rights, following “Bloody Sunday” when state troopers attacked 600 marchers. President Johnson federalized 1,900 Alabama National Guard troops and sent 2,000 federal troops, 100 FBI agents, and 100 U.S. Marshals to protect 25,000 marchers during the third attempt. The ~4,000 personnel ensured the march’s completion, leading to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Watts Riots, Los Angeles (August 11-17, 1965)
A Black motorist’s arrest sparked riots in Watts, killing 34 and injuring over 1,000. The California National Guard (14,000 troops) was deployed, with no federal troops, showing a state-led response.
March on the Pentagon (October 21-22, 1967)
Anti-Vietnam War protesters (100,000) rallied, with 35,000 marching to the Pentagon. Clashes were met by 300 U.S. Deputy Marshals and 5,000-6,000 Army troops with rifles. Over 600 were arrested. No National Guard was deployed, but the federal response showed preparedness.
Newark Riots (July 12-17, 1967)
The beating of a Black cab driver triggered riots in Newark, killing 26 and injuring 700. The New Jersey National Guard (5,000 troops) was deployed, with federal logistical support but no troops.
Detroit Riots (July 23-27, 1967) A police raid on a Black bar ignited Detroit’s riots, killing 43 and injuring 1,200. The Michigan National Guard (10,000) and federal troops (4,700 from 82nd and 101st Airborne) were deployed, indicating significant federal involvement.
Washington, D.C., Riots (April 4-8, 1968) Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination triggered riots in Washington, D.C., killing 13 and injuring over 1,000. President Johnson deployed 13,600 federal troops (Marines and Army) and 1,750 D.C. National Guard troops, arresting over 6,100. The 15,350 personnel was one of the largest federal responses to urban unrest.
1968 Democratic National Convention Riots, Chicago (August 26-29, 1968)
Anti-Vietnam War protesters (~10,000) clashed during the DNC in Chicago. Mayor Daley deployed 12,000 police, 5,600 Illinois National Guard troops, 6,000 federal troops, and 5,000 additional Guard on alert, totaling ~23,000 personnel. Violence injured 668 and led to 668 arrests. Federal troops stayed in reserve.
Compton and Other 1960s Race Riots
Compton saw unrest tied to the 1965 Watts riots. Other 1967 riots in Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and elsewhere followed police-incident triggers. National Guard units (5,000-10,000 per city) were deployed, with federal support limited to logistics. The 1968 riots after MLK’s assassination hit 168 cities, managed by ~50,000 Guard troops nationwide.
Kent State Shootings, Ohio (May 4, 1970) Protests against the Vietnam War’s Cambodia expansion at Kent State saw students burn an ROTC building. Ohio’s 900 National Guard troops fired on unarmed protesters, killing four and wounding nine. No federal troops were involved.
Mayday Protests, Washington, D.C. (May 1-3, 1971)
Anti-Vietnam War activists (50,000) aimed to shut down D.C. Police (5,100), National Guard (1,500), and federal troops (8,000, including Marines and 82nd Airborne) made over 7,000 arrests. The 14,600 personnel secured key areas, preventing major disruptions.
Rodney King Riots, Los Angeles (April 29-May 4, 1992)
The acquittal of four LAPD officers in the beating of Rodney King sparked riots in Los Angeles, killing 63 and causing $1 billion in damage. Governor Pete Wilson deployed 10,000 California National Guard troops, and President Bush sent 4,500 federal troops (Marines and Army) and 1,200 federal law enforcement officers. Arrests exceeded 12,000, and the 15,700 personnel restored order by May 4.
WTO Riots, Seattle (November 30-December 3, 1999)
Anti-globalization protesters (~40,000) disrupted the WTO conference in Seattle, causing $20 million in damage. Seattle police (1,000) were overwhelmed, and Governor Gary Locke deployed 300 Washington Army National Guard troops to secure the convention center, assisting police with tear gas and rubber bullets. Over 600 arrests were made. No federal troops were deployed, but FBI and Secret Service supported local efforts.
George Floyd riots in 2020. 40K National Guard troops.
The George Floyd protests were a series of demonstrations, riots, and demonstrations that erupted in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and spread nationally and internationally following the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, by police officers during an arrest on May 25, 2020. The protests were a response to Derek Chauvin’s actions, which were captured on video, and became a symbol of police brutality and racial injustice
Los Angeles ICE Riots (June 6-11, 2025)
Protests after ICE raids detained 150+ undocumented immigrants escalated with 1,000+ protesters near Los Angeles’ Metropolitan Detention Center. Radical leftist groups, including National Students for Justice in Palestine, chanted “Abolish ICE.” President Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines, with federal agents arresting 40+. Democratic leaders like Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass criticized the raids, with Bass accused of delaying police support, fueling claims of Democratic sympathy for rioters aiming to destabilize the U.S. The 2,700 troops reflect escalation against perceived insurrectionist activity.
I don’t see even Justice Breyer saying things this absurd...
The rioters waving the flags of foreign nations as they reek havoc would seem to be evidence enough of a foreign invasion.
Kennedy didn’t get the memo when dealing with George Wallace.
The troops were called up against George Wallace in 1965. LBJ was the president. LBJ did not rely on the authority of 10 U.S.C. 12406, and Trump alone has relied solely on a statute which procedurally requires that the orders "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."
Executive Order 11207—Providing Federal Assistance in the State of AlabamaMarch 20, 1965
WHEREAS, on March 20, 1965, I issued proclamation No. 3645, pursuant in part to the provisions of Section 334 of Title 10, United States Code; and
WHEREAS, the likelihood of domestic violence and obstruction of the execution and enforcement of the laws of the United States referred to therein continues:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code, particularly Sections 332, 333, and 334 thereof, and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed, for the period commencing with the signing of this order and ending as soon as practicable after the termination of the march referred to in the above-mentioned proclamation, to take all appropriate steps, including the provision of assistance to the law enforcement agencies of the State or Alabama, to remove obstructions to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the United States in that state, including the order of the court referred to in the above-mentioned proclamation, and to suppress domestic violence in any way related to the said march.
Sec. 2. In furtherance of the authorization and direction contained in Section 1 hereof, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the Armed Forces of the United States as he may deem necessary.
Sec. 3. I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of Defense to call into the active military service of the United States, as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, any or all of the units or members of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard of the State of Alabama to serve in the active military service of the United States until relieved by appropriate orders. The Secretary of Defense is further authorized to recall any unit or member so relieved if he deems such recall appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use the units, and members thereof, called or recalled into the active military services of the United States pursuant to this section.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, or both, any of the authority conferred upon him by this order.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON
March 20, 1965
It appears clear that the administration has blown off complying with procedural requirements again, but I suspect that the appellate courts will find a way to keep the troops in California.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.450934/gov.uscourts.cand.450934.64.0_2.pdf
Newsom v. Trump, CAND, Order on Ex Parte Application (12 Jun 2025)
At 24-25:
2. Section 12406’s Procedural RequirementsShortly after enacting the Militia Act of 1903, Congress amended the Act to require that any orders issued under § 12406 be issued “through the governor of the respective State … from which State … such troops may be called.” Militia Act of 1908, Pub. L. No. 60-145, § 3, 35 Stat. 399, 400. Section 12406 maintains this requirement: “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States … .”
Plaintiffs assert that President Trump failed to comply with this procedural requirement. They explain that Governor Newsom first learned that President Trump had called 2,000 of California’s National Guard members into federal service when California’s adjutant general forwarded him the June 7 DOD Order. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. K. From that point on, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, not the Governor, has issued all orders to the federalized National Guard. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. J. Similarly, Secretary Hegseth—not Governor Newsom—issued the June 9 order calling another 2,000 National Guard members into federal service. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. S.
Defendants assert that they complied with § 12406 because written at the top of the June 7 and June 9 DOD Orders was the label “THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.” Opp. at 17. True enough. But an interpretation of § 12406 that permits the President to federalize a state’s National Guard by typing the phrase “Through the Governor of [insert state here]” at the top of a document that the President never sends to the governor strains credibility, especially given that Congress specifically amended the statute to add the requirement that orders “shall be issued through the governors.” See Militia Act of 1908 § 3.
Defendants also argue that they complied with this requirement by sending the order to California’s adjutant general, who is tasked with issuing orders “in the name of the Governor.” Opp. at 17 (citing Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 163). But § 12406 specifically requires that orders federalizing the National Guard be issued “through the governor of the respective State,” not through a different state official (even one who can issue orders in the governor’s name). Indeed, when Congress has wanted to accommodate other state officials, it has done so expressly. For example, the Secretary of Defense may “order a member of a reserve component under his jurisdiction to active duty” except that members “may not be ordered to active duty … without the consent of the governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned.” 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) (emphasis added). And, in fact, § 12406 specifically provides for, “in the case of the District of Columbia,” orders to issue “through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”
At 29-31:
4. Tenth AmendmentPlaintiffs’ second claim in their complaint is that President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard “infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.” Compl. ¶ 95. Plaintiffs’ argument rests in part on their assertion that President Trump acted ultra vires when he federalized the National Guard, see id. ¶ 100, and in part on their allegation that using National Guard members to “quell” or “prevent” protests is an exercise of police power, which is traditionally reserved to the states, see id. ¶¶ 96–98. Focusing on the first piece of Plaintiffs’ argument, Defendants argue that the Tenth Amendment issue “is wholly derivative” of whether President Trump lawfully invoked § 12406. Opp. at 20. And because Defendants assert that they did not violate § 12406, they contend that there is no Tenth Amendment problem. Id.
Yet the Court has concluded that Defendants did violate § 12406, so their argument against Plaintiffs’ Tenth Amendment claim starts from a flawed premise. And even if that were not the case, Defendants fail to grapple with the second part of Plaintiffs’ Tenth Amendment claim—that their use of the National Guard and the Marines comes into conflict with California’s police power. It is well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. E.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618–19 (2000) (the reservation of police powers to the states is “one of the few principles that has been consistent since the [Constitution] was adopted”); Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 203–04 (1824) (“No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress; and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation.”).
Although Defendants identify some stray violent incidents relating to the protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, and from there boldly claim that state and local officials were “unable to bring rioters under control,” Opp. at 19–20, it is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws. Quite the contrary, the Founders reserved that power, and others, to the states in the Tenth Amendment. See Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501, 504 (1878) (“Whether the policy thus pursued by the State is wise or unwise, it is not the province of the national authorities to determine. That belongs to each State, under its own sense of duty, and in view of the provisions of its own Constitution.”).
Of course, federal authority extends to protecting legitimate federal interests, such as protecting federal personnel and facilities. Plaintiffs do not contest this. See Mot. at 2. As discussed above, the parties vigorously dispute whether the National Guard and the Marines were deployed to Los Angeles merely to protect federal personnel and facilities or to engage in more routine law enforcement, and the Court does not at this point reach any conclusion on this issue. But with respect to the Tenth Amendment claim, that is not the only consideration at play; there is also the fact that the federalization of 4,000 members of California’s National Guard necessarily prevents Governor Newsom, as the commander-in-chief of his state’s National Guard, from deploying them as needed. Had Defendants complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of § 12406, the federal interests reflected by that statute may well override Governor Newsom’s interest in retaining his National Guard members. But they did not. So whether or not the National Guard is exercising illegitimate federal police power in Los Angeles, the unlawful federalization of those members has interfered with the state’s legitimate police power, and thus it violates the Tenth Amendment.
For the above reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Tenth Amendment claim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.