By John Q. Hosedrinker President Donald Trump deployed 300 California National Guard members to Oregon on Sunday, despite a court order that blocked the Pentagon from sending Oregon’s National Guard to Portland. The judge cited that the president’s claims were “untethered to the facts” and rejected the Pentagon’s claim that Portland faced a “danger of rebellion.” Governor Gavin Newsom denounced the move as an abuse of power, vowing to sue, while the White House defended the action, claiming it was to protect federal assets following violent riots. This comes after California previously won a court victory against the Pentagon regarding the use of the National Guard for domestic policing.
Read the original article here
Trump sends California National Guard to Portland overnight, after a federal judge he appointed blocked him from activating Oregon’s – this situation is, to put it mildly, a lot. It’s like a political Rubik’s Cube, where every twist seems to create more chaos. Let’s break it down, starting with the core issue: Trump, facing a roadblock in deploying Oregon’s National Guard to Portland, decided to go around it by sending in the California National Guard. The crucial point is that a judge, appointed by Trump himself, had already put the brakes on deploying the Oregon Guard.
This action immediately raises a bunch of questions. Legally, it’s a tricky maneuver. We’re talking about the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally limits the use of federal military personnel for domestic law enforcement. Sending in the National Guard, even from a different state, feels like it dances right on the edge of that line, if not outright crossing it. This also means the President is blatantly disregarding the very system of checks and balances that is supposed to function and safeguard a Constitutional Democracy.
There’s a strong sentiment that this is a blatant power grab, a way to sidestep the courts and exert control where it’s not legally or ethically appropriate. The immediate comparison that springs to mind is the hypothetical scenario of a Democratic president doing the same thing. The uproar from the Republican side would be deafening. The double standard is striking. One of the more pressing concerns is that the Republicans in Congress are not speaking out against these obvious abuses of power.
The whole situation underscores a deep-seated concern about the rule of law. There’s a feeling that the military, including the National Guard, should refuse these orders. The oath taken by these men and women is to the Constitution, not to any individual, and definitely not to illegal orders. The question of the military’s willingness to stand up to illegal commands is a pivotal one. The potential consequences of blindly following an unlawful order could be dire, undermining the very foundation of our democratic values.
The deployment itself – regardless of the legal and ethical implications – has real-world effects. The California National Guard members are pulled from their lives and families, and they may not want to be involved. It’s a burden on them, a disruption of their personal and professional lives, and a potential detriment to recruitment in the future. Moreover, there’s the issue of escalation. This move feels like a provocation, a deliberate attempt to test the limits of power and perhaps provoke a reaction.
The reactions coming from Oregon are worth noting. The governor of Oregon could take action. Oregon could send their own National Guard to “protect” the citizens from the California Guard. The legal avenues open to the state could include suing. This would be the obvious course of action. Meanwhile, the California Guard members are likely to do as they are ordered. They are not going to defy an order. They are going to stand and do their job.
In the meantime, one can’t help but wonder what the underlying motivations are. Is this about maintaining “law and order?” Is it about scoring political points? Is it about something more sinister? The justification given for the deployment is already being questioned. If this is the case, the rationale is likely being used to try and further the political machinations of a few powerful actors in the current political climate. It seems Trump is simply trying to circumvent the judicial system in order to achieve the results he desires.
Then there’s the wider context. There’s a feeling that the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of legal disputes, should step in and resolve this situation quickly. This whole situation feels like a constitutional crisis in the making. The fact that a former president is willing to circumvent the legal system, even after being blocked by a judge who was appointed by himself, should be a warning sign.
Finally, the question of accountability looms large. The Republican members of Congress are viewed as enabling this behavior, creating a climate where such actions are not only possible but potentially encouraged. It’s a reminder that the choices of our elected officials have consequences, and the actions they take can have a huge impact on the stability of our democracy. It appears that the Trump administration is attempting to undermine the judicial branch of the government with these tactics.