The First Amendment means nothing to Trump! It is just a speed bump in the road to fascism. Back in the 2016 term he said...
VOABy Steve HermanJune 2, 2020President Donald Trump is threatening to use the military to end “the riots and lawlessness” that have broken out across the United States following the death of a black man in police custody, prompting harsh criticism from political opponents including likely presidential nominee Joe Biden, who expressed concern “for the very soul of our country.”In a nationally televised address in the White House Rose Garden, the president warned that “if a city or state refuses to take the actions necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.”The comment was an apparent reference to the 1807 Insurrection Act, which allows presidents to quell lawlessness during emergencies. The law was most recently used in 1992 amid rioting in Los Angeles after another African-American man, Rodney King, was beaten by police.Trump said he was “mobilizing all available federal resources, civilian and military, to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans, including your Second Amendment rights.” The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of all American citizens to own firearms.
Now we have in 2025...
AP NewsBy JAKE OFFENHARTZ and PHILIP MARCELOMarch 10, 2025President Donald Trump warned Monday that the arrest and possible deportation of a Palestinian activist who helped lead protests at Columbia University will be the first “of many to come” as his administration cracks down on campus demonstrations against Israel and the war in Gaza.The U.S. Education Department on Monday warned some 60 colleges, including Harvard and Cornell, that they could lose federal money if they fail to uphold civil rights laws against antisemitism and ensure “uninterrupted access” to campus facilities and education opportunities. The Trump administration is already pulling $400 million from Columbia.
No matter what you think about the protests for and against Israel and Palestine you have a Constitutional right to protest.
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.
The Trump administration is knowingly denying our right to assemble and address our grievances!
Politico writes...
The Departments of Health and Human Services, Education and the General Services Administration on Monday also announced a comprehensive review of Columbia University’s federal contracts and grants because of an ongoing Title VI investigation into the school.All schools that receive federal funds must comply with Title VI, a federal law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin. Schools who violate the law could be at risk of losing funding.
Okay first of all, protesting the war in the middle east is not discrimination based on religion! Not matter how Trump twists the logic it is not anti-Semitic nor anti-American activity,! If there is not violence it is not illegal!
However, a president does not need the state to declare an insurrection... the president can do it on his own! So even if it was a peaceful protests the president can say otherwise! And that is what I worry about... Trump calling in the military to put down a peaceful protest he doesn't like!
There is another law called Posse Comitatus Act with is at odds with Insurrection Act, the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of federal troops on American soil but the Insurrection Act allows the use of troops. The two laws are in conflict.
Harvard Undergraduate Law ReviewWritten By Cristian Padilla-TozziFall 2020The United States military has long been seen as a unit of defense and protection overseas, but in the current political climate of distrust in local law enforcement, we have now come to consider whether this overseas protector is needed at our doorsteps. Due to recent events, such as the inhumane murder of George Floyd and the civil unrest that followed, this consideration to deploy the military on American soil has been brought to the forefront of the public’s attention. Notably, President Trump remarked that he would invoke two laws that would allow him to suppress any civil unrest that may pose a threat to American sovereignty. Of course, the president’s considerations are not raised without concern, anxiety, and misinformation, as such laws may create a potential rift between the valued concept of American liberty and a potentially misused autocratic dictatorship. Therefore, to ease public understanding, we will examine the president’s powers in regard to deploying troops on American soil, particularly via two laws that grant this power to him: The Insurrection Act of 1807 and The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.[...]The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act are two laws that are currently under heavy scrutiny, especially given the current political climate. Because of their relevance, it is important to not only understand their purpose but to also recognize false assumptions that commonly stem from these acts. The Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act can cause unnecessary anxiety and misinformation as a result of media portrayal. Therefore, my intent is to clarify the legal jargon, allowing all citizens to be well-informed on these legislative acts and to make their own objectively-based assessment of the law and its implications.
I have a very bad feeling that this year we will see Trump use these laws to put down peaceful protests that he doesn't like. Lawfare writes about the Insurrection Act that,
Unfortunately, the language of the act is vague and overbroad, and many experts from across the political spectrum have rightly called on Congress to revise the text. In an article forthcoming in the Harvard National Security Journal, I survey these proposed legislative reforms and argue in favor of many of them (along with reforms to other areas of the U.S. national security legal framework).But even without amendments to the act, the statutory text, as it stands, can and should be read narrowly, for both constitutional and practical reasons. Indeed, executive branch officials themselves have long argued, in a variety of contexts, that the act must be understood to be limited in scope if it is to conform to the constitutional scheme. Practical concerns are also likely to arise if a president were to invoke the act, concerns that surfaced during a recent series of national security scenario planning exercises in which I participated. Run by the Brennan Center for Justice this summer, the “Democracy Futures Project” convened bipartisan groups of former senior government officials and other experts to game out the consequences if a future president attempted to use the Insurrection Act. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those consequences were disturbing for anyone interested in the future of democratic government.
[...]The second trigger, Section 252, grants the president more discretion because it does not require the request of state officials and is broader in scope. Specifically, this section permits the president to deploy the military if the president “considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” In interpreting a precursor to the Insurrection Act, in the case of Martin v. Mott, the Supreme Court suggested that the president has relatively broad discretion to interpret the act’s statutory language. Nonetheless, the statutory text itself suggests that the president may rely on this provision only in extreme circumstances, such as a condition of war or a serious disruption of civilian affairs.
You know darn well that Trump is going to read it a broadly as possible and beyond.
No comments:
Post a Comment