this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
778 points (99.5% liked)

politics

24133 readers
3875 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 118 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump acted illegally in deploying the National Guard to address protests in the Los Angeles area.

In a ruling issued Thursday evening, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer wrote that such use of the National Guard was a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and exceeded the statutory authority granted to the president.

The order, which takes effect Friday, says the administration must return control of the California National Guard to the state of California.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Doesn’t he have immunity now?

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He does, but anyone following illegal orders doesn’t. Sure, he could pardon them, but only after a long, expensive, and potentially life-changing legal battle after which they’re convicted.

That doesn’t sound like a fight most regular troops should want to gamble on.

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Pardons can be pre-emptive, as long as the illegal act has already occured. (Pardons cannot apply to a future crime that haven't happened yet.)

Just look at Ford Pardon Nixon.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 4 points 22 hours ago

That’s true, but trump is transactional. He and Giuliani were selling them for 2 million a pop. How many military regulars can afford one? Why should trump care to pardon them if they can’t give him something?

If I was rank-and-file, I wouldn’t take that bet.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 64 points 1 day ago (3 children)

They may not be able to prosecute him, but they can make him stop what he's doing. Theoretically.

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 2 points 22 hours ago

Court: "Deploying National Guard in LA is illegal"

orange dickhead: "KILL THESE 'LOOTERS' IN NYC!

See, this is the problem. Doesn't even matter unless this category of actions are enjoined.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

And when he inevitably doesn’t listen they’ll make a really strong pouty face.

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It does seem the power of the judiciary will be challenged quite soon.

It will probably be with a tweet saying "Make me. You and what army?" and the courts will need to rely on the US military choosing the Constitution over the Commander in Chief.

May we all have the fortune to live securely in less interesting times. I suppose it is our duty to make that happen.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 4 points 21 hours ago

It does seem the power of the judiciary will be challenged quite soon.

I think that happened some time ago.

[–] PunnyName@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Might be true, but since the orders are illegal, the NG are following illegal orders if they continue, meaning potential court martial (depending on many factors).