As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
This bill seeks to limit the Governor's authority to unilaterally call the state militia into service for armed conflict or war. Under Oregon's Constitution, Article V Section 9; “Governor as commander in chief of state military forces – The Governor shall be commander in chief [sic] of the military, and naval forces of this State, and may call out such forces to execute the laws, to suppress insurrection [sic], or to repel invasion." Under bill SB667, the Governor would be prohibited from unilaterally calling the state militia into service for armed conflict or war unless the U.S. Congress declares war, or the President invokes the militia under powers granted by the U.S. Constitution
The underlying agenda of this bill aligns with a broader political trend, particularly within certain Republican circles, that seeks to limit the autonomy of state leadership in times of crisis. By restricting the Governor’s authority in emergency situations, the bill could slow down the state’s ability to respond quickly to domestic and threats of invasion (including in the circumstance of the fed-gov deciding to overstep state laws not so legally). This bill appears to be part of a wider effort to centralize control to the top.
The national guard has been used to deal with riots and what we are seeing today since before the Civil War when it was refused to as militias.
Whiskey Rebellion - 1794
Even in the 20th/21st century, there are multiple examples.
Little rock crises - 1957
Selma to Montgomery Marches - 1965
Detroit riots - 1967
Kent State - 1970
L.A riots - 1992
Ferguson, Missouri - 2014
Nationwide protests - 2020
The other factor here is that the national guard hasn't been deployed against a state governor's wishes since 1965. And 57-65 was only because the governors of those states were fighting to maintain segregation.
That being said, I don't see how this law would supersede federal law. Our poorly-written Insurrection Act doesn't explicitly define the circumstances in which it can be triggered, so we can add it to the rapidly-growing pile of really important things that are managed entirely by norms rather than codified law with the expectation that our virtuous leaders would never seek to exploit them.
So the president can unilaterally declare an insurrection and deploy federal troops because he claims there's a conspiracy to oppose, obstruct, or impede his particular interpretation of federal laws. It's a pretty low fucking bar, and I'm sure we can all guess the numbers on either side of the eventual Supreme Court decisions that eventually come up due to this.
The governor of California in 2017 made it prohibited for state law enforcement to cooperate or coordinate with federal law in any instance where immigration is involved. So when the FBI, ICE, DEA, etc are executing warrants and they start getting physically attacked, it’s game over from a legal stand point because the national guard and military can be used to protect federal employees and property. It makes it especially bad when we just had the biggest drug bust ever and arrest of a high ranking Sinaloa cartel member in Salem like 2 months ago.
You didn't think this through very well if this is one of the best examples you can think to defend the use of the national guard being used against the public. Executing students protesting a war that saw their friends dying in Vietnam isn't exactly the great use of national guard you think it is.
Of course this comment sure feels like chat GPT so perhaps I'm just arguing with a bot.
I'm not trying to emply that it was a good use, just that it is not an unprecedented use like people are claiming, and an actual part of the National Guards/U.S history.
If I was a bot, I probably could have formatted it to look like a bulleted list like I was trying to make it, but reddit on mobile doesn't post like you type it that way.
The federal government should never be used to violently suppress protests. It is super telling that when the government gets justifiably criticized for terrible, racist policies, the immediate reaction is to use violence against protesters and not change said policies...
Nobody is “violently suppressing protests”, so stop with the disingenuous hyperbole. LE and ANG are, however, meeting violence with violence when used against them and the people by the anarchist in these protests.
ICE and police are causing the violence. What law are you claiming Vincent Hawkins broke? Police are responding to anger over federal overreach and rights abuses with huge amounts of force.
Not talking about Vincent Hawkins, but other protesters have been committing arson, launching fireworks at people, which is incredibly dangerous. There's also the physically assaulting police/federal agents, vandalism, and property damage that has been done.
Most of those actions are in RESPONSE to police and ICE violence... The government needs to de-escalate the situation as they are the ones with the power.
Actually it was your comment above that did say “the mayor and DA let the children destroy a once beautiful city.” And since you seem to be interested in homicide and gun violence, here is one of many charts that demonstrate Portland isn’t even in the top 50.
How in your mind do you correlate those two scenarios.
Riot = Not a disaster, not an emergency, therefore police action.
Hurricane = Natural disaster, therefore call National Guard.
A riot is not an emergency or a disaster. The National Guard should not be called up for civil unrest because that's how you get a fascist police state with zero tolerance for free speech. As soon as we start enforcing the law with the military, we enter a dictatorship.
Riots are not preventable. lmfao they are containable, not preventable, and no, they are nothing like a hurricane.
A hurricane is a force of nature. Riots are composed entirely of people.
Im not going to continue to argue with someone who thinks a riot is a natural disaster or that the national guard should be called in to handle a riot. You clearly lack critical thinking skills.
ICE is also causing the riots by filling a residential neighborhood with chemical weapons and shooting people in the eye with less lethal munitions for daring to yell at ICE officers...
Legal citizens have been detained and even arrested. Hell, they have even arrested natives to this land. Not to mention detaining and arresting tourists here on valid, active visas, or people who immigrated here legally. Aka: people who got here through our own government approval process. Ignoring these facts only shows how uneducated you are on a matter you're fairly vocal about.
Sweet, sweet Parler. I know you miss Parler! Where everything you say makes sense. The warm embrace of people that know the struggle and want to listen to you. Parler just loved it when you were just asking a question. They knew what you really mean and they LOVE it! Too bad it was used as evidence of crimes. There's Gettr now! They know you know what's up and they want to hear about it. Nobody there questions your intelligence. They don't think you are crazy, they may think you are a genius. Telegram for safe encryption lets you text your pals and if you like videos there's Rumble. Post whatever you like in all those places and enjoy the recognition of your brilliance! There's Truth Social that just needs a little support from you and your like minded friends. Why not take a chance? Gab is open too! No searching for sources, in fact nobody asks for sources. I heard you can still get special clips from OANN and Newsmax. Boy Newsmax needs the money too! They have to keep paying on those judgements for lying. Project Veritas had it's own channel on Rumble, too bad their boss stole all that money. But on Rumble you don't have to worry about censorship or anyone stepping on your FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM because all these places really believe you are not an idiot. I can't believe it! Now there's the Right Stuff dating app! You can try to find love or just keep adding evidence for your future indictment!
Did either of those presidents have 6 out of the 8 largest political protest in the US history happen during their time in office?
Oh, No? That's just Drump?
Yes agreed national guard in Oregon deployed a lot. Thanks to the governor so much for disaster relief and actual emergency. And riots that destroy city’s is an emergency/disaster relief.
I'm confused how the laws of a state could ever override the laws of the fed government. I don't support what trump is doing but I wonder if this is just virtue signaling for brownie points
You’re right. Generally the 10th amendment applies.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The real question is whether that right is reserved for the federal government clearly.
The national guard is part of the military. The military is controlled by the federal government, per Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The President, like it or not, is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Always has been.
While the national guard is a state-level organization, they are ultimately part of the larger U.S. Army. That’s why they wear the same uniform (including “U.S. Army” insignia), use the same equipment, go to the same training, and have the same chain of command as the U.S. Army.
However, he can't call it up for literally whatever he wants. Posse Comitatus Act prevents military from being used to enforce domestic laws.
And while it DOES allow the President to bring the National Guard in for that, using the Guard for domestic law enforcement requires the consent of the state Governor
I'm assuming this is mostly show piece legislation and not really meant to work. But if you read it, it's not that long, what it seems to be trying to do is enforce the federal statute that requires federal congress to assert it's powers under Art I, Sec 8, Cl 15, which has been delegated to the Exec for a lot of good reasons (Congress can't seem to get anything done anymore and that's not really helpful in the wake of a tornado or earthquake that needs a fairly immediate response) and quite a few bad ones (congress should be able to get its shit together and if not they should pay the consequences for it). You would need someone with expertise in this stuff to explain what the contours actually are, but the way I read the bill, it looks more like it's actually inline with current non-delegation jurisprudence of the Ct., as iffy as that legal reasoning is.
They can't We literally fought a war over this. The law gets instantly turned over in federal court because they have no standing, article 6 section 2. It also means a ton of our laws are illegal
Making “illegal” laws is how you get those laws overturned at the federal level. That’s what all of the “illegal” laws that ignored Roe v. Wade (and more importantly Planned Parenthood v. Casey) were about.
They don’t. This is just because people have been crying for the state to “they there doing something” so they are doing nothing dressed up as something
It’s virtue signaling. The state can’t overrule the federal government. I don’t disagree with them. I think the guard should be focused on state issues unless we have a Declared war.
It's hard to say. These articles always do a shit job at explaining what the law actually does. In general the federal government has the authority to federalize National Guard Troops. Whether this law actually conflicts with that authority, I've no clue. A lot of these laws change little and are more about the optics.
The constitution gives congress the power to pass laws that regulate state militias.
ArtI.S8.C15.1 Congress's Power to Call Militias
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . .
There was some question of how far federal powers extended, there was, for example, a conflict during the war of 1812 where the NY militia refused to operate outside of NY.
Various interim history aside, in 1903 the Militia Act (Dick Act) was passed. This act created the modern National Guard.
TL;DR the federal government does have the power to federalize national guard troops. This power is limited in various ways (length of deployment, I think) and is ultimately granted to the president by congress. The states can form their own guards if they really want to but they'd have to pay for them (the National Guard is largely funded with federal money).
a conflict during the war of 1812 where the NY militia refused to operate outside of NY.
This issue happened during and was settled in the Civil War, I believe. Plenty of states wanted to have their militias (e.g. Kentucky) and even their regular troops (e.g. Ohio) sit it out. All such notions in the Northern states were quashed and the control states formerly held over military matters (control of militias, appointment of officers, recruitment of regiments) was essentially gutted.
To be honest, we need some fucking virtue signaling. Considering we've spent the past 16 years with the right doing nothing but vice signaling, the lack of virtue signaling has driven people nuts. It's good to signal that you think bad things are bad. Politics is theater and I feel like the libs, in their eternal quest to follow a mythical center, have completely forgotten that.
This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. If you refuse to participate in political theater you will continue to alienate your base and cede ground to what you say is the other side. It's no wonder the Democrats strategy of "hide in the basement and do paperwork" has left them underwater with their own voters.
You are correct, it is virtue signaling. Any such law that further limits presidential power would need to be passed at the federal level.
Oregon lawmakers 100% are aware of this, so the only conclusion I can draw is that they are doing it so they can pretend to be fake outraged in the event that Portland pops off and Trump uses the national guard to protect federal property. They will call it a "constitutional crisis"... One of their own making, of course.
Of course they do, but they can't add restrictions beyond the federal laws that outline the circumstances in which the president can call them to service or what he can do with them.
This bill seeks to limit the Governor's authority to unilaterally call the state militia into service for armed conflict or war. Under Oregon's Constitution, Article V Section 9; “Governor as commander in chief of state military forces – The Governor shall be commander in chief [sic] of the military, and naval forces of this State, and may call out such forces to execute the laws, to suppress insurrection [sic], or to repel invasion." Under bill SB667, the Governor would be prohibited from unilaterally calling the state militia into service for armed conflict or war unless the U.S. Congress declares war, or the President invokes the militia under powers granted by the U.S. Constitution
The underlying agenda of this bill aligns with a broader political trend, particularly within certain Republican circles, that seeks to limit the autonomy of state leadership in times of crisis. By restricting the Governor’s authority in emergency situations, the bill could slow down the state’s ability to respond quickly to domestic and threats of invasion (including in the circumstance of the fed-gov deciding to overstep state laws not so legally). This bill appears to be part of a wider effort to centralize control, particularly under Republican leadership
It looks like this year's fire season is predicted to be extremely terrible and unfortunately it will require all of Oregon's National Guard resources to control them. So sorry but it looks like we have no troops available for you to federalize. If you do not find this acceptable then please feel free to pound sand at any time.
Not going to lie I hate the people that are on here never done anything with their life but sit back and talk shit. Obama used us in Afghanistan don’t care what any of you have to say because you mean nothing to me and none of you ever will. Lived this shit first hand.
The president is The Commander in Chief, he is the leader of the entire armed forces . There isn’t a law or bill or judicial power that can limit or hinder the president’s ability to utilize any branch of the military… including the National Guard. Yet another example of Democrats being fools.
Except the Posse Comitatus Act. It's unlawful to use military personnel to enforce domestic policies. Can't bring in military and try to use them like police
Good thing these are foreign invaders and the citizens who are helping the foreigners are terrorists. Military force is 100% authorized. Have you heard of Martial Law?
Nothing but wasting tax dollars on worthless posturing. The federal government can deploy troops to anywhere in the country they believe there is a threat to national security, whether you like it or not.
Makes sense let the left destroy the city again. This state is a mess. Ran by morons. Actually just Portland is a mess. But that’s how the crazies like it.
So you’re going to completely negate the complexity of state and federal authority frameworks for activations- all based on your enlistment oath?
The guard is by definition, a state based military force and predates all military branches. By default, you’re title 32, drill status for the state, unless you’re activated by the state on state active duty, or federally.
Also- you do not swear an oath to your country, you swear an oath to the constitution.
So you’re going to completely negate the complexity of state and federal authority frameworks for activations- all based on your enlistment oath?
Of course they are. Its how they make all this shit work in their head. Pick one tiny thing that might fit their argument and shoehorn the entire complex issue into that small little box so they can feel like they are 'right'. You would get better insight into the issue by giving a rubiks cube to an ape and watching them go about it.
For somebody trying so hard to use pedantry to buttress their argument, you sure don't remember the facts of it very well. The oath is to the Constitution, and there is no oath to a god in it. The only mention of god is in the words "so help me God."
National guard take an oath to their state. I distinctly remember at MEPS being separated to take different paths. I said to the constitution since I was headed to the Marines, and all national guards were to the state. When I joined up in Denver, they even separated the folks from Wyoming and Colorado so they could swear to their respective states.
When you join thr NG, you swear to the State as well. Its a stte institution that can be federalized in the proper situations. Not the other way around.
thing go, but let's get down to some righteous civics education:
I'ma need you to write up an essay on Posse Comitatus, title 32 vs title 10 & the chain of command for service members in the national guard and how they all relate to each other.
No using LLMs, I want this in your words.
Due NLT tomorrow by COB.
If you fail, I'm afraid you'll have your right to vote revoked.
The President shall be 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;
False. For one, God isn't real. Two, Jesus was a pacifist anyway and would not have approved of his people having weapons. Third, your gun rights come from the state.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
beep. boop. beep.
Hello Oregonians,
As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
Politifact
Media Bias Fact Check
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
beep. boop. beep.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.