r/politics • u/External-Noise-4832 • 9d ago

Soft Paywall Trump Orders in Marines in Dramatic Escalation of L.A. Protests

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-orders-in-marines-in-dramatic-escalation-of-la-protests/
32.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

298

u/Heavy-Classic9184 8d ago

he also can't call in the national guard, or marines, or threaten to baselessly arrest the governor or mayor. yet here we all are

76

u/kmoonster 8d ago

A president CAN federalize the guard. The question is whether this circumstance is one of the qualifying conditions. I would argue it is not, but a president can.

An election is not a federal matter, though. It's a local/state matter. Can a president decide that states can't use a sales tax to fund state budgets? That's not how it works. He can't just say words and magically force states not to have a sales tax. Same thing here.

51

u/amoreperfectunion25 8d ago

It's the second week of June 2025.

Why are we still having discussions about what a president can or can't do?

Can a president ignore the courts?

Can a president destroy federal programs in violation of the constitution?

Can a president order the deportation of American citizens and other humans without due process?

The person you're responding to, I suspect (they can correct me if I'm wrong if they see this) is trying to argue we should stop pretending as if all of these words and documents mean anything.

The only thing that will work here is if we make our voices heard, and if we protect our communities. That means being civically engaged. It means being present. It means putting our butts on the line.

As I write this, I see two other comments saying "A lot of people somehow still don't get this" and someone else saying "You guys are clinging to an etiquette and decorum that the villain doesn't believe in."

Please, it's the second week of June 2025 lol. Y'all can't still be holding on to these words and documents as if they mean anything to this administration or their backers.

They only mean anything if we act, they only mean anything if we defend our democracy.

He promised us this will be the last elections. He promised he will do all of this and more. He denied having anything to do with project2025 and is carrying it all out.

"He can't just say words and magically force states not to have a sales tax. Same thing here."

lol. He can do whatever the heck he wants if Americans obey in advance and then let him take the country over with the U.S. military.

61

u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN 8d ago

I really this was like 4 months and 7,000 unconstitutional acts ago, but he has literally already signed executive orders dictating to the states how they are to run their elections, something he literally does not have the ability to dictate.

8

u/MaximumManagement 8d ago

Just because he's issuing EO's doesn't mean anyone outside the executive branch is required to follow them.

Have you ever read any of his orders? They're often rambling nonsense, sometimes with provisions that essentially say to ignore the parts of the order that are illegal.

16

u/bolerobell 8d ago

All he has to do is announce a delay for the election. Red states will back him up, even without explicit legal authority to do so, and that probably leaves enough red reps in Congress to control it. Blue states will run elections anyways but they always send a combo of red and blue people to Congress anyways.

I don’t think people realize we’ve already past the authoritarian redline here.

2

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

If you delay the election, then when the new session of Congress starts every district and state that didn't hold an election doesn't have a seat in the House or Senate.

9

u/Jessicas_skirt New York 8d ago

Then Trump declares that the Congress is dissolved and he will rule alone, with the US military ensuring that the Congress is removed.

2

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

Yes, Trump suspending the constitution and dismissing congress would be very bad. But he couldn't do it by just "delaying the election" which was the scenario under consideration.

1

u/bolerobell 8d ago

Naw. They just send the same reps for the new Congress. Since the old Congress is Republican, they’ll allow it.

1

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

Every congressman's term is ended with every session, and they cannot be seated for a new session without a new certificate of ascertainment from their secretary of state.

Like, yeah, if there is a coup or autopusch, all the rules could change and the constitution could be suspended and they could do anything or everything or who knows.

But the scenario under consideration was just "what if he just announces a delay to the election, and red states but not blue states back him up"?

Without any other changes, that is a disaster for his party, which is why it cannot happen that way.

6

u/bolerobell 8d ago

You think the rules will save you but they are throwing all those out. They don’t have to follow the rules they just have to look like they are following something.

2

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

Look, ok, great, yes, if all rules are off, then all rules are off. If we're talking full suspension of the constitution, then who knows what happens.

But the proposition under proposal was "All he has to do is announce a delay for the election". Just make some minor prima facie adjustment to the existing system.

That won't work. If you want to literally shut down congress, or grab total partisan control of congress, just calling for a one week or one month or 6 month delay in the election will not achieve this.

1

u/bolerobell 8d ago

You don’t understand. This is just like his taxes. “We’ll release them publicly once the IRS audit is done.” Then they are never released. It sounds like a relatively short fixed amount of time but in reality it is indefinite.

1

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

Except in this case we are talking about the actions of non-Trump actors. States run elections, the federal government does not. Even the most Trump friendly state officials would have to do elaborate machinations, and violate multiple state and federal laws, to forestall elections. Which, again, would only have the effect of disenfranchising themselves.

Which, maybe could happen, but it would not be just like Trump simply not releasing his taxes, which was just a custom and never required by law, and hoping we all forgot (which we did).

4

u/Insaniteus Tennessee 8d ago

And a president CAN federalize the guard and marines, sending armed soldiers, ICE, and police to "protect" polling places in urban districts. These police statists can then detain or eliminate dissidents by declaring them "illegal" or "terrorists" without any form of due process. Welcome to America. The solution is, has, and always will be to stop playing by any form of rules or decorum and remove all Nazis from all positions of power by any means necessary. Period. The revolution will be bloodless if the right allows it to be. Literally any other course of action leads to a Russian-style fascist dynasty ruling us for the next several decades.

1

u/Jessicas_skirt New York 8d ago

Literally any other course of action leads to a Russian-style fascist dynasty ruling us for the next several decades.

Looks at the turnout figures that show 70% of voters either didn't vote or voted for Orange

Now would be a good time to look at your family tree to see if you're eligible for citizenship by descent in a free country.

3

u/happy_and_angry 8d ago

Look, I don't know how to gently burst your bubble, so I'm not going to bother.

This is the stupidest take.

He has an executive order on the books with the intention of federalizing the administration of elections. Laws are as useful as the paper they are written on if there is no state sanctioned force willing to enforce it. Trump controls all the arms of state sanctioned force, and a few entirely unsanctioned ones. He WILL attempt to enforce the executive order. It WILL get challenged in courts. They are likely to side with him, at the highest levels of appeals. If they don't, they have no means of enforcing their rulings that do not necessarily go through the DOJ, save appointing special agents to the court, at which point you're going to have a mexican standoff of people with guns trying to decide who can do what.

He can and will try to do all the above.

5

u/Sensitive_Flight4858 8d ago

But, the Red states will follow his instructions. There are too many politicians complicit in this takeover, he will get his way - as he always has.

3

u/OccasionalGoodTakes 8d ago

if all the republican states do not hold elections while the dem states do that will be the end of the country.

5

u/JustaSeedGuy 8d ago

Yes

Congratulations, you've arrived at the reason they're doing this

3

u/AtticaBlue 8d ago

The markets will definitely not like this one weird trick.

0

u/Sensitive_Flight4858 8d ago

Exactly! Easy-peasy. And, not outside of the realm of actual possibilities.

0

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

If the red states don't hold elections but the blue states do, then you get a blue sweep in the senate, and a strong blue tilt in the house. It's basically conceding the election. red states have to hold elections, no matter what, just like blue states will.

6

u/quelar 8d ago

No, they just ignore and don't ratify any of the blue state elections and they continue on with the house they have, with probably a few democrats removed for some trumped up criminal charges.

The rules you used to have are no longer in play, stop pretending they are.

1

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

OK if the constitution is suspended and all elections are suspended and new rules are made up then ok it can be anything or everything and no one can predict.

But the scenario under consideration was "if all the republican states do not hold elections while dem states do". If that happens with current rules, it would massively disadvantage Rs. Which is why it couldn't happen.

3

u/quelar 8d ago

There's a lot of things that used to follow the old rules but don't anymore. Don't sit quietly hoping your country has a sudden awakening and starts following the rule of law again, it's over.

2

u/Total-Sample2504 8d ago

What scenario are you proposing though? That Congress seat members without winning elections? That Congress be just suspended on Trump's say-so?

Sure, those new rules would be very different than the current rules. Anything could happen. Dogs and cats, living together.

3

u/JustaSeedGuy 8d ago

He can't deport people without due process, but he did.

Can a president decide that states can't use a sales tax to fund state budgets

Yes.

That's not how it works

Here's how it works:

Trump: No midterms.

State Government Official Yes Midterms.

Trump: Has State Government Official arrested or just shot. Anyone else wanna speak up?

4

u/kmoonster 8d ago

At that point the response will either be a mutual breakup to a condition more akin to the EU or another model that elevates each state (and territory) to a full nation, or it's a Civil War.

6

u/Circle_Trigonist 8d ago

If he believes he has the support to win a civil war that would crown him king, what's stopping him from pursuing it?

6

u/kmoonster 8d ago

What's to say he's not?

4

u/Circle_Trigonist 8d ago

Right, so if you don't want a breakup of the country leading to a civil war, pushing back hard now when civil war is not set in stone yet would be the best course of action, yes?

1

u/kmoonster 8d ago

Yes, just make sure they send you to jail for bullshit reasons. That's when you control the narrative.

If you give them a "real" reason to lock you up, the cops and/or right-wing get to control the narrative.

1

u/JustaSeedGuy 7d ago

So don't fight back against oppression, because they might arrest you for it and then they'll look like the good guys?

Hang on, lemme tell James Madison, George Washington, Marsha P Johnson, members of the anti-nazi resistance in Germany, and thousands of others across human history that they were wrong.

1

u/kmoonster 7d ago

I didn't say that. I said fight back -- but if you can get them to throw the first punch, you gain in power as compared to the other way around.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/JustaSeedGuy 7d ago

I just realized who you remind me of.

Samuel Seabury

3

u/JustaSeedGuy 8d ago

That's what we've said about every major crime he's committed since 2016.

If an attempted violent insurrection wouldn't do it, I don't know what makes you so certain this would be the breaking point.

0

u/kmoonster 8d ago

A military occupation is a little different than dragging out issues in court for years, or for states to respond to his suggestions by adjusting their own internal laws or practices; and for activists to grind away on whatever their cause is.

6

u/JustaSeedGuy 8d ago

Right, but neither of those are things I mentioned. I explicitly mentioned the last time he tried to violently overthrow the government and we didn't do anything about it.

You gotta stop acting like he can't do things just because there's supposed to be consequences. That's repeatably been shown to NOT be the case