Show of Hands

Republicans, remember that you think Presidents have the power to dictate policy to states when a Democrat is president.

Obviously not. What’s disappointing is that the governors who are being obstructionists are not being locked up like the judge.

Yes. States’ Rights.

Yes

Who needs state rights?

Depends on the issue. The Executive Branch controls immigration.

The Supreme Court refused to lift a lower-court block on Trump’s attempt to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area, underscoring ongoing legal disputes over presidential authority to use military forces domestically.

That depends….as always, the devil is in the details…..

Yes, UNLESS the Insurrection Act of 1807 is invoked. The Insurrection Act is the exception to Posse Comitatus restrictions.

I think Trump has enough grounds to invoke the Insurrection Act in blue states that are openly and wantonly obstructing federal immigration enforcement, but as far as I can tell he hasn't jumped through those hoops yet.

Also, for all of you opportunistic and hypocritical "sTaTeS rIgHtS" folks - roughly half of all servicemembers deployed overseas since 2001 have been National Guard or Reserve. Don't pretend like you give a s*** about the National Guard, because 99% of you don't give a s*** the rest of the time when they're deployed to actual warzones.

Scratch the above…..State and federal government should work together deciding if there is a need for national guard deployment based on what is in the best interest of both.

When Chicago becomes an actual war zone, we’ll talk.

Like George Wallace during desegregation? How things change. Hmm.

Yes but... 😁

There shouldn't be a national guard. They should be run by the states. A State Guard.

...but it is the National Guard so...no.

Some states have a State Guard for that exact reason.

Not necessarily

Nat'l guard is a state militia. The U.S. has army/navy/air force/marines/coast guard that they can deploy if needed.

Like FL … it’s a waste of taxpayer $ since there is a Nat Guard. The Nat Guard has a:

Constitutional Mandate
Dual Role: The Constitution established militias (later the National Guard) with a dual purpose: state-level security and a national reserve.
Federal Powers: Congress could call the militia to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".
State Control: States maintained control over organizing, arming, and appointing officers, satisfying fears of a powerful standing army.

The Feds changed the role and delegation of authority of a Guard into an arm of the military instead of a guard against Federal influence. At least, that is the way I view the NatGuard in 2025 under the current regime.

Except for some very extreme situations, absolutely

"Whenever 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, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary, to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

That's verbatim from the law. Sounds like EXACTLY what is going on in places like Chicago.

State and Federal government should work together regarding the need for national guard deployment not doing what is the best interest for both.

Own stock in gun manufacturers, huh?
Just what our country needs - a few more million guns.

Rebellion is only one option, hence the word "OR" in that clause. Unlawful obstruction also meets the criteria.

I know literacy isn't your strong suit but come the f*** on.

Not even close.

Of course

There’s no rebellion!!

All states should have a Guard of some sort and each county should have a militia. Just my opinion.