Is this the "state rights" I keep hearing about?
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
145 points (98.0% liked)
News
24599 readers
6211 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh dismisses Mena’s concerns.
“I believe that legislation is unnecessary,” he told Stateline in an interview. “I think it’s what is generally considered a statement bill, but you have to treat it seriously. I’m not sure what they’re getting at here other than a swipe at Donald Trump.”
I won't overrule Roe v Wade if you confirm my appointment. It's settled law. (or something akin to that)
The problem with this scenario is that it is completely wrong. The Supreme Court will not overrule Roe v. Wade.
https://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v34n03_dd1_sedler_final.pdf
Stupid people fall for this shit. GOP are proven liars. Don't take any chances with them. Orange gave them permission to be as awful as they want to be and they are seizing it… again, but even more this time.
Exactly. We can't rely on any sort of subtly or assumption of law. Precedent, be it of the courts or simply the traditional way of doing things, won't stop them. It has to be solid law, and they're still going to take it to court.
Both sides are partially right. This bill is a dog and pony show. Federal law trumps (pun intended) state law. So this law is not really enforcable. And the blue gov can always order his guard to defend the state. Even if the administration federalizes them. Nothing really stops him. So the law doesn't change much. But it does bring the idea into the news. And for the actual nation guardsmen from red states, it will sow doubt as to which laws they are supposed to follow. For the ones in the blue states it will help move some who might reject fighting other US troops into doing so if ordered. So it just moves the needle a little bit if such a thing were to happen. But it won't. The administration knows some guardsman would refuse orders on both sides. And that would set an example for federal troops to do the same. So it would weaken them. And they have more than enough illegals to to deport already. They don't need to trade control for more people to deport. Maybe in 3 years it might be a trade they see as valuable if other factors come into play relating to the next election.
Just fucking shoot them, who gives a damn if it triggers a civil war. Hell for shit and giggles call it the war of Trumpist agression.
The dubvee.org instance is going to ban you for this comment.
Pls do
Are you gonna?
If I was that persons attorney I would advise them not to answer this question
I would as well, but I'm not entirely certain that answering it would be a crime. Stating that you will shoot someone in self defense, or community defense, especially when that person is violating several Federal Laws with their current actions, should be legal for all intents and purposes. That is literally advocating for law and order.
Nice try FBI
"states' rights!"
if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.
Why would blue states fear only red state national guard if this is the case? The local guard would have to enforce the federal edicts, right?
I guess if they don't, the only two options are do nothing or confront the invading guard, the latter of which sounds a lot like civil war.
there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it
Whoever wrote this needs to go back and read Thomas Jefferson or pretty much any history of any collapsing authoritarian regime in history.
They could obey the orders. Or, they could say "lol no". What's he going to do, activate their remote-control collars?
The US military, National Guard included, goes through training that heavily emphasizes support for the constitution and what to do about illegal or unconstitutional orders.
It's actually pretty dangerous to start to bend the knee to an authoritarian despot in this way. By presenting Trump's illegal bullshit as some kind of pre-ordained structure that other people will have to follow, of course, because that's the system, they are normalizing it. Even if he were following US law, which he isn't, they'd have the option to tell him to go fuck himself, and they'd be in some excellent historical company in doing so.
Exactly. People need to move past this mindset that assumes these rules, and traditions, and norms are laws of nature. No, they’re just ideas that people created and no hand of god is going to sweep out of the sky and smite you if you just don’t do them. We need to start acknowledging and participating in the increasingly asymmetrical warfare that Republicans started.
Isn't it illegal to obey illegal orders? Good soldiers don't follow illegal orders, at least; even if not illegal itself.
As much as we like to assume soldiers will follow orders and doctrine as if they were computers running code...they are ultimately human beings with their own free will, reasoning, biases, and agendas, to hell with what is and isn't legal and proper on paper. It would be a crossroads for the country and everyone who serves.
One of the oldest rules of quelling rebellion is to not use the local soldiers to do it. Too much emotional attachment. Bring in an outside force, preferably ones with standing ethnic or political hatred for those you want to crush.
So the blue states don't have a National Guard to respond?
It’s a scenario that was so concerning to Washington state Rep. Sharlett Mena that she introduced legislation that would make uninvited deployments of out-of-state troops illegal. Her bill cleared a committee last week and has the backing of Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, who pushed for the proposal in his inaugural address last month.
...
But, as she noted to her colleagues last week, if Trump were to federalize National Guard units, there’s nothing the state could do to prevent it; a presidential order preempts state authority.
Hey member in Iraq War II when we were losing a bunch of soldiers and instead of throwing more in or thinking about a draft they just sent over the National Guard?
the National Guard. Who . . .were supposed to be guarding the nation?
Anyway. Just in case some of you were not alive to remember that.
National guard was used a lot in ww2 and many other wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not a new thing
In WWII? Really - where were they deployed?
More or less everywhere, really.
Here’s more
Oh, well, the day after Pearl Harbor makes perfect sense.
I know Washington recently passed an assault weapons ban but we are running into “this is what the second amendment is actually for” territory.
Authoritarian regimes receive the power we freely give right? "There's nothing we can do" is probably a reasonable alarmist statement if trying to get a bill passed, but I assume the "we" in this case is just legislatures not the general public?
Nice.