Looks like the President does have to comply with Title 10.

On to the Court of Appeals.

It lasted what, 2 hours?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
It lasted what, 2 hours?

It is not over yet, hearing scheduled for the 17th.

Lets not be in rush to give the turd any more power than the constitution grants him.

I find it a wonder the Gov can make things happen that fast. Usually it drags on forever.

quote:

I find it a wonder the Gov can make things happen that fast. Usually it drags on forever.

Just think what he could do as POTUS, given immunity and all.

US government, not governor.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I find it a wonder the Gov can make things happen that fast. Usually it drags on forever.

Just think what he could do as POTUS, given immunity and all.

...world of fear...

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
It lasted what, 2 hours?

It is not over yet, hearing scheduled for the 17th.

Lets not be in rush to give the turd any more power than the constitution grants him.

Too bad Newsom missed this message before crowing about it

Again, the case has not been disposed of nor resolved. On and up.

Oh and the Appeals Court only stayed the lower court pending a hearing on Tuesday.

So, no. The Appeals Court did not overturn anything yet.

And all this does is feed the human vermin!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I find it a wonder the Gov can make things happen that fast. Usually it drags on forever.

Just think what he could do as POTUS, given immunity and all.

...world of fear...

I interpreted "Gov" as governor. Like Newsom is governor, and as POTUS he supposedly will have the same immunity protection that Trump supposedly has.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
It lasted what, 2 hours?

It is not over yet, hearing scheduled for the 17th.

Lets not be in rush to give the turd any more power than the constitution grants him.

Too bad Newsom missed this message before crowing about it

Crowing and eating crow are two different things.

We shall see if Trump's chef needs a recipe for crow.

Here's a chef for Trump, highly recommended. I know this guy personally, since he was a baby. His father and I were friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myron_Mixon

You ARE our resident expert on the consumption of crow, so i will take your word for it

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
You ARE our resident expert on the consumption of crow, so i will take your word for it

And estrogen, dont forget the estrogen!

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
You ARE our resident expert on the consumption of crow, so i will take your word for it

Thanks for the compliment.

I think of myself as an expert at dishing crow eating out.

For myself I prefer humble pie.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
You ARE our resident expert on the consumption of crow, so i will take your word for it

Thanks for the compliment.

I think of myself as an expert at dishing crow eating out.

For myself I prefer humble pie.

Again, I bet this sounded amazing in your head

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, the case has not been disposed of nor resolved. On and up.

Oh and the Appeals Court only stayed the lower court pending a hearing on Tuesday.

So, no. The Appeals Court did not overturn anything yet.

So, who is in control of the troops, after the appeals court overruled the lower court? We all know this isnt going to be settled short of scotus. And some of us have read article II.

I would expect disbarment hearings for any judge short of Roberts that attempts to remove CiC from CiC, regardless of outcome. I am aware of immediate prior circumstances, and I didnt stutter

A state national guard are not federal troops. They are a modernization of state militias.

That is why there is a Federal law that requires in certain situations the consent of that state’s governor.

Title 10 controls the federalization of a state national guard.

That is not disputed. The question is was Title 10 complied with.

If the Regime can convince that Article 10 is unconstitutional, so be it. I doubt it. Maybe?

The Regime either complied or did not compile a Federal law. President even acknowledged in his order he was invoking Article 10.

If we want to talk about the Marines, there is another Federal Act that addresses using U.S., federal troops on U.S. soil. This is a post Civil War law that still is in affect and been expanded to include all Federal service branches. Basically, a President cannot use Federal service branches for policing inside a state. Hence, why you hear protect Fed property.

Sigh
Article II, section 2, clause 1
The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the united states, and of the Militia of the several states.

Literally not a word about with the approval of the states governor.

You like to throw out Ike using troops to enforce desegeration to use force against the Arkansas governor. You seem to hold that as an ideal action.

Which one, both, or none was an illegal action?

Oh oh oh militias aren't state national guard or reserves. Yeah, libbies have made the opposite arguement, for decades, that they are, in reference to 2a

Dang, sir, pick a side and own it

Article 10 eye roll confound it. Title 10.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Article 10 eye roll confound it. Title 10.

Article II eye roll confound it. Article II

Do keep up

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Article 10 eye roll confound it. Title 10.

it's so cute that you crow about attacks on the regime, but when it cuts back, you are all "ohh, but it only stands till the next court date" ..

Article II - wins EVERY time, literally written into the constitutions ... remember, sir, every social media post you make could be read into your disbarment hearing, should the regime win out