By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Governor Gavin Newsom is suing the Trump administration for illegally deploying the National Guard without gubernatorial consent, a move impacting all states. This action, deemed unconstitutional and immoral, violates a statute mandating that mobilization orders be issued through state governors. Newsom further criticizes the deployment of Marines and additional National Guard troops as a divisive tactic inciting fear and chaos. He asserts that the situation is not about immigration but about upholding democratic principles and the rule of law.
Read the original article here
Governor Newsom is correct in his assessment that President Trump’s order to deploy the National Guard has nationwide implications, affecting all states. The order itself conspicuously lacks any geographical restrictions, meaning it’s not limited to a specific state or region. This broad scope raises significant concerns about the potential for widespread deployment of military forces across the country.
The lack of geographical specificity in the order suggests a deliberate strategy to potentially utilize the National Guard in various locations, responding to protests or civil unrest wherever it arises. This is concerning, considering the potential for misuse of power and the implications for civil liberties. The absence of specific limitations means the decision of where and when to deploy rests solely with the Secretary of Defense, potentially leading to arbitrary and politically motivated deployments.
This lack of specific limitations also opens the door for an escalation of federal involvement in local matters. The order’s vague language regarding the protection of federal property could easily be interpreted to justify military intervention in situations that are primarily local concerns. This circumvents the usual checks and balances inherent in a federal system.
Adding to the concern is the absence of a defined duration in the order concerning active-duty troops. While the National Guard deployment is restricted to 60 days, there’s no such time constraint for active-duty personnel. This indefinite timeframe leaves the possibility of a prolonged military presence in various parts of the country open-ended. This lack of a defined timeframe raises questions about the long-term consequences and the potential for sustained federal intervention in local affairs.
Another deeply unsettling aspect is the absence of judicial oversight in the decision-making process. The order places the sole authority to determine the “necessary” level of force with the Secretary of Defense, a political appointee. This lack of independent review or judicial oversight creates a significant risk of abuse of power and the potential for excessive force.
The potential ramifications extend beyond any immediate deployment. The vagueness and broad scope of this order establish a dangerous precedent. Future administrations could easily exploit this precedent to deploy military forces into various protests or civil unrest situations across the country without the need for invoking the Insurrection Act or any other clear legal justification. This erosion of checks and balances on the executive branch poses a considerable threat to democratic processes and civil liberties.
Furthermore, the timing of this order is deeply suspicious. The order coincides with planned widespread protests, raising questions about the true motive behind the deployment. Is it truly about protecting federal property, or is it a preemptive measure intended to suppress dissent and quell protest activity?
The absence of geographic limitations raises fears of a wider deployment in reaction to widespread protests. The potential for the military to become involved in the policing of protests across the nation creates a serious concern about the erosion of civil liberties and the potential for clashes between civilians and military personnel. The broad reach of the order leaves no state unaffected, and the prospect of a military response to protests in various locations is a disturbing reality.
The order itself demonstrates a disregard for the delicate balance between state and federal authority. The lack of geographic specificity, the undefined duration, and the lack of judicial oversight create a troubling precedent that poses a significant threat to the principles of federalism and the protection of civil liberties. This situation demands careful consideration and proactive measures from state and local authorities to safeguard their citizens’ rights. The potential for the escalation of the situation, the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, and the absence of clear legal constraints warrant immediate action to mitigate the potential dangers. The far-reaching consequences of this order demand attention and a clear plan for states to navigate this potential crisis.