Trump wants to send troops to the inner cities. A top senator wants to rein him in. Sen. Richard Blumenthal is contacting other lawmakers in his bid to overhaul the Insurrection Act. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/24/trump-insurrection-act-deploy-military-00137598 A top Democratic senator is renewing his effort to rein in Donald Trump’s — or any other future president’s — authority to deploy the military inside the U.S., following recent threats from the former commander in chief to use troops to tamp down violence in cities if reelected. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a senior member of the Homeland, Armed Services and Judiciary committees, told POLITICO he is seeking Republicans and Democrats to join his latest effort to overhaul the law involving deployments inside the U.S., known as the Insurrection Act. The law, enacted in 1792, grants the president the authority to deploy the military domestically and use it against Americans to suppress rebellion or violence. But Blumenthal and other critics argue that it is overly broad and ripe for abuse. “Ideally, there would be interest on the Republican side because the potential for abuse really ought to concern all of us, regardless of who was president,” Blumenthal said. Trump’s back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire have tightened his grip on the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, prompting worried lawmakers and foreign governments to devise plans to prepare for and protect against more upheaval. The renewed push comes after Trump told an Iowa audience that he considered, but held back from, deploying the military to inner cities to fight crime. He also called New York City and Chicago “crime dens.” “And one of the other things I’ll do — because you’re supposed to not be involved in that — you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in. The next time, I’m not waiting,” Trump said in November. “One of the things I did was let them run it, and we’re going to show how bad a job they do. Well, we did that. We don’t have to wait any longer.” Blumenthal tried to sharpen the law once before in 2020, following Trump’s threats to use troops amid civil rights protests across the U.S. following the police killing of George Floyd. At the time, progressive Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), introduced a companion bill, which attracted 25 cosponsors but never made it onto the House floor. In 2020, the Democratic-controlled House added a modified version to the annual defense policy bill, but the Republican-controlled Senate and the final bill did not. Whether Democrats in the House will revive their push alongside Blumenthal this time is unclear, but the measure would have better chances in the Democratic-controlled Senate than in the Republican-controlled House. Blumenthal said he is drafting a new version of his legislation that would amend the law to more clearly define what an insurrection is and the circumstances under which the president can use force, though he did not offer specifics. It would also grant local officials standing in the courts to have the emergency lifted at some point after the act is invoked. Under the law now, a president may deploy troops to “suppress rebellion” whenever “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” It also allows a president to send the military to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy relied on that language to enforce the Brown v. Board of Education desegregation case. This isn’t the only legislation coming ahead of a potential Trump presidency that appears designed to rein him in. As part of the fiscal 2024 Pentagon policy bill, Congress approved bipartisan legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an act of Congress. The measure, from Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), protects an alliance that was a frequent target for Trump. The former president has reportedly been discussing the possibility of withdrawing the U.S. from NATO, if elected.
Its always good for Congress to clarify what they mean.......The current Chevron case is all about this Time for Congress to take back their power from the other branches But then there is this.. Joe Biden Faces Growing Calls to Federalize Texas National Guard
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-trump-staffer-brilliantly-responds-170044858.html Ex-Trump Staffer Brilliantly Responds To Trump's Warning To Haley Donor
Whatever. How's that border situation doing? We have two choices. I guess you're down with the side that stands on the mantra of "I don't give a f about how many unscreened folks dish the line and enter the country illegally." Or where they come from, and who they are. You're gonna deny this one too? Yeah that works.
My feedback regarding immigration and the southern border have been consistent for a long period of time. However I have found people on ET don't really want to discuss proposed solutions but rather spend their time abusing others. Once again let's review the points. I have outlined my position on immigration reform several times in this forum - it includes four points: Building a "wall" consisting of physical barriers, electronic surveillance and other measures to stop illegal immigration, child trafficking, drug trade, and weapons smuggling at our southern border. Require all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. to register over a 90 day period. Any that fail to register will be deported. Any with felony criminal records will be deported. All illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. who pass the screening will be granted 6 year renewable work visas in the U.S. Require employers to use e-Verify and significantly increase employer penalties for being non-compliant. Bottom Line: We need a rational solution to our existing illegal immigration problem. Simply deporting all the illegal immigrants is not a realistic policy and will cost huge sums of money. Most illegal immigrants are hard-working people who simply are here for economic opportunity and are not criminals. These immigrants are key workers in our economy taking many jobs in construction, agriculture, and other areas. We should bring them out into "daylight" economically so they can be a legitimate part of our workforce and pay taxes. There is also the reality that the U.S. needs a net increase in immigration due to our demographics. For new immigrants - we should adopt a skills based immigration policy moving forward (similar to Canada) -- keeping in mind that we need everyone from high skill IT workers to house framers to people to pick crops. There are jobs that need immigration to fill at every level of our workforce. We should not just be allowing PhDs to immigrate to the U.S. under any skills based program. Our current immigration is a mess. It needs reform at every level and a comprehensive immigration policy put into place. Reference from 2020- https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/general-election-2020.342033/page-36#post-5231830 Reference from 2012 - https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...for-illegal-aliens.253132/page-2#post-3675858