“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
Well that’s strange, don’t you think? Why did he usurp Newsom’s power in CA, but refused to do so in DC? Could it be that he would stand to gain something if the coup succeeded?
Not according to the Constitution which grants these powers to the Supreme Court who have stated that what Trump is doing is illegal
“10 U.S.C. 12406,” within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services. It allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances of “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the U.S. government. Doesn’t need an invasion just needs danger of a rebellion. Attempting to murder federal officers and attempting to directly subvert the will of the federal government is by definition a rebellious act.
Where has the supreme court ruled that this deployment is illegal? Can u point me to it please?
Is a riot actually a rebellion? No. Is breaking the law a rebellious act? No.
Was January 6 a riot or a rebellion?
A riot and attempted rebellion. Trump wanted the nation guard their and was blocked by the local govner.
Well that’s strange, don’t you think? Why did he usurp Newsom’s power in CA, but refused to do so in DC? Could it be that he would stand to gain something if the coup succeeded?
Maybe because last time when he didn’t there was an insurrection? Maybe he learned from last time?