OMG...really? What egregious affront to Obama have I generated?
Just because you feel that it's some egregious affront to Obama doesn't mean it actually is.
You keep complaining about how this is such a blow against the President, who is? Obama. So that's you.
Yes really. YOU invented this
I didn't say it was an egregious affront to Obama, you invented that idea that I felt that way.
WRONG! I did not say it was a PERSONAL affront, rather I said the act was in defiance of the authority of the President of the United States. There is a difference. To give an example, to say that Obama's daughters are ugly because they are black females is a personal insult to Obama and his family. That is personal. To say that the Governor of Texas is acting IN DEFIANCE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is not personal, but is in defiance of the authority of the office of the President of the United States.
I invented what?
Gov. Abbott is addressing the concerns of his fellow Texans. Of course he's doing the right thing here.
I said what you invented. I am not going to repeat it.
Ordering the state militia to monitor federal troops in response to concerns from citizens that martial law could be imposed by the President, can be interpreted as sending the message to citizens that such an order from a President, who is acting within his constitutional authority, will be obstructed. The use of the militia in that way can be seen as defiance of the authority of the President and thus the constitution. As such, it can be viewed as obstructive in nature.
More like he is appeasing the irrational concerns of a bunch of certifiable nuts.
Fine we'll go with your definition.
If there's tbe slightest hint of ML, the **** will hit the fan . Bring it Obama...we dare you!
Does that answer you questions?
Sure does. And that's just the type of thing that I am talking about. As a result, like I said, what the Texas governor did could be interpreted as sending such a message to the citizens of Texas. Therefore it could be seen as a violation of the constitution.
When the Administration calls for martial law, will see how it goes. Chances are there will be one Hell of a war before we discuss the legalities.
Knock yourself out dawg! I don't want to be any where near it, or have anything to do with it.
Good luck with that....we're everywhere.
If called upon however, they are under the authority of yours truly, Barack Obama.
EDIT
nvm **** that. But they can all, as individuals, be drafted so they're practically albeit not legally still under the command of Obama.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
When called into actual service of the United States. Yes, the President can assume control of State militia by calling them into service, but he does not get carte blanch control of State militias. Ultimately a militia is controlled by the State it serves and then President when called up.
They're just making sure the Feds stay within proper bounds.
We'll see what they lawyers say on that one. But as the State has control of its own militia, it seems to me that the governor has more than enough power to order them to monitor federal agents operating within his State.
Do you people even understand that legally it is irrelevant? Federal legal authority always usurps State legality. This is a non-issue. The State governor is doing it to appeal to mental simpletons that don't know the Law.
*I* have a right to monitor troops (to a point), so of course the Governor does, too. Having said that, sounds like grandstanding on his part to me.An interesting question of constitutional law. Does the governor of Texas have the right to order a volunteer state militia to monitor Federal troops to ensure there is no hostile intent?
Not according to the 10th Amendment.Do you people even understand that legally it is irrelevant? Federal legal authority always usurps State legality. This is a non-issue. The State governor is doing it to appeal to mental simpletons that don't know the Law.
No you are not everywhere. Only the Supreme Lord of all things is omnipresent. Indeed everywhere are his eyes, his hands, his ears, his mouths, his legs, and his faces.
In other words you have nothing.Psych ops work in mysterious ways
You know what I meant.
An interesting question of constitutional law. Does the governor of Texas have the right to order a volunteer state militia to monitor Federal troops to ensure there is no hostile intent?
I think this needs to be broken down into:
A. Can he?
B. Is it even remotely warranted in this case?
For me, the answers are:
A. Yes
B. No
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?