Public opinion is largely skeptical of the Supreme Court's directive regarding timelines for gubernatorial assent on state bills, viewing it as an overreach that threatens the separation of powers and democratic integrity. There are calls for greater accountability across government branches, including the judiciary, amid concerns about the effectiveness of judicial actions in ensuring this.

Supreme Court

State Governors

Judiciary

No, the point of having a National Guard is to protect the nation domestically (for the most part). If the President of the United States calls up the National Guard, then the troops are then under federal control and there is nothing a State Governor can do to stop it.

techtony_50

Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to integrate the university of Alabama, I believe.  George Wallace stood to the door and the general in charge of the Alabama National Guard ordered him to stand aside.  In a state role that general worked for Wallace.  But in his federal capacity as a federalized national guard, major general, he followed orders for the president of the United States

IllustriousHair1927

Absolutely not. Even if the governor doesn’t sign off on it, the president can federalize the national guard

Quirky_Ad1604

How does it work?

It's sonple, title 10 gives the commander in chief the power to assume control of the guard. once federalized, the governors' control is suspended because they are no longer a state force but an active component of the federal military, and therefore, the governor is not in any link of their chain of command.

Further, all national guardsmen who are activated under title 10 are subject to the exact same laws, rules, and regulations as regular active duty military components and are expected to act  accordingly.

And given the constitutional supremacy clause stemming from article IV says federal law is superior to state law, there is no state remedy to the presidents title X authority to federalize the state guard.

passionatebreeder

Nope, to the best of my knowledge, once they are federalized they are under the command of POTUS.

BrianRFSU

The National Guard was how informal militias were legalized and restructured in the early 20th century. The idea was that militias would no longer be vigilantes or private armies for a politician, but well-regulated. Vestiges of that can be seen in since-superseded legal definitions, which clearly identified the National Guard as the “well regulated militia” famous in the 2nd Amendment (but things have changed in the intervening century).

There were a *lot* of full scale battles and even small scale wars fought between militias all over the United States. It was a serious problem. After nationalization, they were mostly just used to break up striking workers — often as violently as possible, and also sometimes culminating in battles (which were usually just massacres).

In localized emergencies they can be activated by a state’s governor to mainstream the peace or help with disaster relief. Things like disaster relief, emergency food distribution, and fighting wildfires are handled by the military in much of the world. 

In national emergencies, the President can activate and “nationalize” them (the word national is right in the name, after all). In practice, that almost always means there’s not enough regular or reserve troops to fight in overseas wars. The slogan for the Guard in the late 1990s might as well have been “I have to go back to dig up land mines in Serbia AGAIN? I just joined up for the college money.” And the War on Terror led to a lot of used car salesmen unexpectedly learning Arabic and/or Pashto and mumbling “I didn’t sign up for this. They said one weekend a month!”

After full scale war, they’re frequently deployed as riot police. No one’s really quite sure what they’re doing in LA right now since there aren’t any riots — just a few dozen protestors blocking secret police rounding up whole neighborhoods — but we’ve all at least seen the footage of Guardsmen lining up to protect Beverly Hills in 92, or shooting some unarmed hippy kids in 72.

Really they seem to get called out, either by a governor or a president, whenever lots of Americans get angry at the same time. Unless the Americans in question want to storm the Capitol building and lynch our elected leaders. For some reason that gets a pass, but an unarmed, nonviolent labor leader stands in front of an unmarked car that’s filled with armed dudes in street clothes, seemingly kidnapping people off the street? He gets beaten by six people in riot gear (after he’s already on the ground) and gets to spend a couple of days in the hospital before being transferred to a privately owned prison acting as a subcontractor to the US government.

And occasionally a President with *courage* nationalized them to enforce desegregation. Kennedy and Eisenhower had to send in the National Guard and even the regular Army to protect Black children who wanted to go to school. So it’s not always bad.

It’s legal and it’s how things work. That doesn’t mean it *should* be legal or that’s how things *should* work, but we — as a nation and as a people — seem to be happy settling for things the way they are instead of agitating to make things the way they *should* be.

Wide__Stance

People forget their High School History lessons about the Little Rock 9. The Arkansas National Guard was federalized by Ike against the will of their governor to enforce desegegation. 

[deleted]

Some states do have their own state defense forces that can not be nationalized by the president. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

WishieWashie12



Trump invoked 10 U.S.C. 12406 as part of this deployment/takeover/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. That law has been in place for quite a while (*1990s, with an update in the 2000's*).

The amendment of that part of USC was opposed by governors at the time: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/08/06/governors-wary-of-change-on-troops-span-classbankheadhouse-bill-would-increase-presidents-authority-over-national-guard-unitsspan/1b432f2c-35fe-4299-a8f0-8a10fddb862e/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2006/08/06/governors-wary-of-change-on-troops-span-classbankheadhouse-bill-would-increase-presidents-authority-over-national-guard-unitsspan/1b432f2c-35fe-4299-a8f0-8a10fddb862e/)

However, it happened nevertheless. A few states have State Defense Forces, which are more-firmly under the Governor's control - but these militia can't really coordinate with or be funded by DOD in the same way that the NG can, so states were incentivized to fund the NG instead of separate SDFs. I ponder whether we'll see a reversal of that practice.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State\_defense\_force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force)

Hopeful_Ad_7719

Maybe if ICE didn't wear face masks and dress like airborne commandos, they'd get along better. Whoever trains them needs to be fired.

The big issue will be when the local jails refuse to house anyone arrested.

N-Y-R-D

First get elected, declare an emergency enact the enabling act. Oops that was 1933

Desperate_Donut3981

The “National” in National Guard should answer your question. Just because they’re in California doesn’t change that they still serve the Federal Gov’t.

rcbz1994

What trump is doing now is only legal under the insurrection act. Although they do have a loophole of putting guard units on federally funder title 32(state) orders, those a governor can refuse. Right now he is just straight federalizing them(title 10 orders).

wesre3_

Go ahead and look at what happened during the Civil War the last time a state told the federal government they did not have to listen to them.

SomeWeedSmoker

NG don't forget your UCMJs which 

Military personnel are required to obey **lawful orders** from the President, but **they may have a duty to disobey if the order is illegal or unconstitutional.** Disobeying a **lawful order** can lead to serious consequences under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The National Guard is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) only when it is activated in a **federal** capacity or during specific training periods. Otherwise, members typically follow their respective state codes of military justice.

Activating the Insurrection Act is a **federal** act that allows the President of the United States to deploy military forces domestically under specific circumstances, such as insurrections or civil disorder. This law provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement.

People have the right to protest in the United States, protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of assembly and speech.

The use of force must comply with the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures.

amiibohunter2015

That's a dumb move on Trump's part, but par for the course.  Once National Guard troops are federalized (i.e., called up by the federal government rather than the state) they lose their police powers since it is unconstitutional for federal troops to be used to arrest or detain US citizens, unless they are on a military base. If they are, they are in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act unless Trump attempts to use the Insurrection Act. 

The governor will lose control of those troops for the duration of their call up.

That is why there were two commanding generals in charge of Hurricane Katrina relief.  Bush *knew* that if he federalized the National Guard, they couldn't help the NOLA police department with law enforcement.  That's why there were two different generals in charge of relief operations at the same time in New Orleans.  One was for the federal troops; the other was for the National Guard.

If anyone is detained by these federalized National Guardsmen they can just walk away, the guardsmen can't legally do anything to stop them. Most NG know that they lose their police powers when that happens, they just hope the average civilian doesn't. They can only hope that you'll willingly stay where they put you and wait for the police to show up to arrest you.

Come to think of it, the way that Trump probably wants them to be used is actually unconstitutional and illegal so they may not be able to do what he wants them to which is assist ICE with arrests and assist police with riot control.  They can't if they're federalized it would be the equivalent of sending the US Army after US citizens on US soil.

The only federal military force excluded from the Posse Comitatus Act is the US Coast Guard because their main mandate is law enforcement.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse\_Comitatus\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)

naranghim

if the nat guard is ordered to fire on civillians i wonder if they will actually do it.  I can also forsee a lot of them saying fuck it and joining the protestors.

rdking647

Can national guard troops refuse an order? Can their superiors say we aren't doing that?

Riot control and riot operations have been part of many NG units' training. Do not conflate riot control with LE activities. You can form lines, control riot movement, etc without arresting anyone, using other than lethal munitions, gas, or other activities used solely by law enforcement.

The_Rage_of_Nerds

The Armed Forces of the United States swears allegiance to the Constitution, not some capricious politician. They have no obligation to be loyal to a political party.

Whatever powers you allow the government to apply to others, it will one day apply  to you. So don't grant them freely, or under the facade of " national emergency".

I mean from that article its pretty clear Newsom is only speaking out, not trying to physically stop it. If he tried to subvert it, or succeeded in having the national guard defy presidential orders, like it or not I'm pretty sure that could be considered treason. Pretty sure the first season of Designated Survivor had a situation like this end up like that, though I'm not sure how accurate that is

MobsterDragon275

Yes and no. Technically yes, but the whole point of a federal national guard is give the president powers to intervene in the states when necessary. The president can force the matter in an emergency and I can't imagine a situation where the president would order federal troops into a state against the wishes of the governor and would just stop when he says no

Potential-Ganache819

You guys need to look up executive order 10730 and you will have your answer.

RealBlueShirt123

There is a lot of information going on here... and some of it is.. wrong. Many of these answers are politically motivated, and not really unbiased. Here is the absolute fact. 

Trump federalizing the national guard means the governor can do nothing about it. However; they can only act in a support role, under title 10 they can protect Federal employees, property, etc. They are federally called, so they can not, at all, have any normal police powers. 

A lot of the people here are saying trump is doing it and doesn't care, as if he's going to LA and demanding non police arrest people, he's not. No one will be arrested by the NG, and the gaslighting will likely stop once it's made clear that's not happening. 

  
To the core of your questions, this is beneficial for a few reasons. The national guard can, and will deter the ongoing threats of violence. They can also help local law enforcement ( LAPD ), which is what they role will be used for. LAPD Will be happy they are there, regardless who's control they are under, and this will all blow over.

yillbow

The only way would be if the state left the nation. So no not really

Moist-Carpet888

Can you imagine being in the National Guard and having THAT as a commander in chief?  Kent State, here we come. You watch.

lol fighting the federal government never ends well

Acceptable_Table760

It's called a National Guard, for a reason. It's not a State-if-you-let us Guard.

jesonnier1

But, unless the federal government actually pulls the “Insurrection Act” card, wouldn’t this be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act?

angelino1895

Nope. Liberal governors and mayors won't stop violence and destruction so it falls on the federal government. Enjoying the shitshow.

Slapdaddy

WTF_USA_47

##Join us on r/ThePeoplesPress to keep up with current events and news!

##Join us on r/50501ContentCorner to see design requests, protest sign ideas, memes, and more!

##Join 50501 at our next nationwide protest on July 17th and for community building and mutual aid events on July 4th! 

**Find more information:** https://fiftyfifty.one

**Find your local events:** https://events.pol-rev.com and https://fiftyfifty.one/events

**For a full list of resources:** https://linktr.ee/fiftyfiftyonemovement    

**Join 50501 on Bluesky with this starter pack of official accounts:** https://go.bsky.app/A8WgvjQ

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/50501) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Here's other reasoning:   
  
Dictatorships don't care about laws and they do what they please.

Bearmasterninja

GYEKUM

...if you used ChatGPT the polite thing would be to say so instead of passing it off as your own words.

roz303

Can you help research and name the states where family members will required to financially cover disabled, elderly, children needing medical care.  Women delivering babies with no Insurance.

For the one surviving next of kin who happens to have two nickels to rub together their future financial life will be hijacked.  Never mind their  peace of mind.

In red states this is a message for revolt!! Name and shame and make sure folks see it coming.

commonsense_good

I don’t think they particularly care about the legality of their actions.

dancingwolpertings

I mean sad truth is even if you're 1000% correct (which I'm not saying you arent), the only way to get it struck down for being against the constitution is for it to get to the Supreme Court, which is stacked to keep it in place.

I think the only realistic way of undoing this bill is in 4 years when we hopefully have a democratic president and congress again to sign a new bill into law overturning it.

Or like, the crazy unrealistic scenario where we get a Congress in 2026 that's 2/3s democratic that can then pass bills regardless of what the president says.

NateZilla10000

I’m gonna be honest with you chief, the people breaking the laws know that what they’re doing is illegal and they don’t give a fuck. They’re not playing the same game as us, so us abiding by the rules doesn’t affect them. 

What would work is mass protests, prolonged strikes, and coordinated economic withdrawal. We, the citizens, are more powerful than they are. It’s just remarkably easy to sit back and do nothing, hoping and praying that some judges or lawmakers or representatives will save us without our lives being affected at all. I’m not sure if the American people are ready to get uncomfortable and take a stand, but if we did, we would be more powerful than the government.

mothmanspaghetti

Although I understand lots of comments here on this being a useless idea, I think it will be very effective for any group or firm to take this to court. It will slow things down, make the masses aware of its illegality and possibly even keep some things from being enforced. Its definitely worth the fight and I encourage spreading this idea!

Ojmochafrappucino

DerpoMarx

UnoStronzo

I understand but we can't stand without cold hard facts, resources and people of more authority than us, union leaders is a start, but don't demand or they walk away. Understand how to stay safe ourselves in a flight we have slim margins on but winning here and there legally with the protests will make us stronger and someday become a force that law makers have to look at right now I see that they just close the door and look the other way at what's happening around them. I want what's right but not at the people's expense for legal whatever because then someone could get in trouble for no reason. I'm just wanting everyone to stay safe In this fight.

ffpoke

Good points.   

Unfortunately who makes final decision if it's legal or not.   The supreme court, with a majority already in trumps pocket

tony_719

A012A012

They've already said they don't answer to the courts, and the SC is already completely rolling over for this administration.

StageCrafts

Don't wait for feedback. If you have an idea for how to save the country, do it. 


That being said, a signature sheet is about as effective as a strongly worded letter. 


These criminals aren't gutting our country because they are unaware that people will be hurt. They're not doing it because they think voters want it. They're not doing it because no one has expressed dissent. 


They know the numbers. They know the country will be hurt beyond repair and that we're mad. They know it's illegal. They know; they just don't care. 


They don't care about the constitution or the law. They don't care about voters or the community. They don't care about America.


Our government is full of criminals who only care about their own power and greed. It doesn't matter to them that they'll kill millions along with the American dream. It matters that they'll get paid and get to be part of the elite nazi club.

Silent-Indication496

Hopefully he vetoes that deltal 9 THC bill that just passed the Senate.   I don’t use the products, used too, but I’m just tired of government treating marijuana like it’s some kind of devil drug.  Alcohol is much worse.

LukeMayeshothand

**HE BROUGHT THAT VETO HAMMER ON DOWN LIKE THE FIST OF AN ANGRY GOD!**

Silly-Mountain-6702

TL;DR

NONE of these can be overridden. 

# Senate Bill 50: Loosened Concealed Carry Restrictions

* **What it would have done**:
   * Lowered the legal age for concealed carry from **21 to 18**
   * **Eliminated training requirements** for obtaining a concealed carry permit

# Senate Bill 153: State Officers as Federal Immigration Agents

* **What it would have done**:
   * Required **state law enforcement to assist federal immigration enforcement**

# House Bill 318: Mandatory Detainers for Sheriffs

* **What it would have done**:
   * Required sheriffs to **hold certain undocumented people for 48 hours** after they would otherwise be released, to allow ICE to intervene

makgeolliandsoju

Who tf wants 18 year olds having guns with no training???

Patient_Language_804

Good to see him not just giving up. Maybe they can get it overridden, maybe not. But at least make them go through with doing it.

Sherifftruman

Thank you for remembering and thank you for not being an establishment dem. I absolutely take back what I said since you actually followed through. Glad I voted for you and I hope you keep it up

Except_Youre_Wrong

Well done, NC has enough problems than to be worried about teenagers with guns or ICE.

Bowie1275

I need that leftist who posted the article about unrelated bill signings as evidence that Stein would allow these to become law to come in here and apologize. Just completely unhinged.

vdbl2011

Pargua

So there’s an explanation on 3 bills which were vetoed for good reasons but what is House Bill 126 which was signed into law?

nilsiniloo

thequietthingsthat

WNCsob

AR-180

Old_Highway5014

YabbaDabbaDingo

All of those will be passed anyways. Get the alien horde out! 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! 


* Please provide a source to the image/video below the comment. If source is not provided then the post will be removed.

* Use the same title as that of the source link. Editorialised titles are not allowed

* If it is Original Content (video/pic taken by you) then please respond with OC below the comment

* If it's meme/satire, please use the meme/cartoon flair and provide the link to the original creator. Memes will be allowed as per mod discretion and can be removed without explanation.

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedstatesofindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

In other words governor/president can hold elected representatives to ransom by not passing bills, is that what they want ?

-Divided_We_Stand

This govt is quasi autocratic, they don’t let other govt work so that they can score political brownies against them , and when other parties calls them out , they start to cry and ends up calling them against the federalism or idea of India . We have a petty leader as prime minister and evil party bjp ruling us. For that party , only electoral win matters , they have already sold national interest to fucking Adani

Bol wo rahi hai lekin shabd kisi aur ke hai

GoodAd5004

charavaka

A 3 month timeline to reject a bill or pass a bill, should be enough time. What is the debate in this issue? 

Can someone make a rumour that the Governor post is created by British Rule and they are still working for the British. So that our beloved RSS teams and co., will go and destroy their Bhavans.

ForzaFerrari7

Supreme leader ne bola to inhone puch liya

GlitteringWafer9263

https://x.com/mkstalin/status/1922908484372398116

I strongly condemn the Union Government’s Presidential reference, which attempts to subvert the Constitutional position already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and other precedents. This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP’s behest to undermine the people’s mandate. This is nothing but a desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected State Governments by placing them under the control of Governors serving as agents of the Union Government. It also directly challenges the majesty of law and the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution.
Why should there be any objection to prescribing time limits for Governors to act? Is the BJP seeking to legitimise its Governors’ obstruction by allowing indefinite delays in Bill assent? Does the Union Government intend to paralyse non-BJP State Legislatures? Our nation stands at a critical juncture. The questions raised in the reference reveal the BJP-led Union Government’s sinister intent to distort the Constitution’s basic distribution of powers and incapacitate the State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties. Thus, it poses a clear exigent threat to State autonomy. In these grave circumstances, I urge all non-BJP States and party leaders to join this legal struggle to defend the #Constitution. We will fight this battle with all our might.

frizene26

BionicWanderer2506

I think it's the right call to go for the pardon if it would mean you pass a criminal background check. Employers may do a Google search, but a lot will just run the background check and be done with it and if they do run the search and deny you after being straight for 20 years, you don't want to work for those kinds of people

NickElso579

Dude, so many people would love to be in your position. Take the pardon. Also opens up government jobs, federal gun rights, travel ability, licensing requirements etc for you.

LingeringDildo

I think you should try to get the pardon. I don't think any of my employers have googled me. They just ran the background check. I live in a state where they can only look back 7 years, so it's almost like I never got in trouble, but I'd def get a pardon if I could!

PineappleNo6573

So what do you mean?You had one charge or something? Or like if I stay out of trouble for twenty years, they'll get rid of my record? I just got my voters right back. I'm going to try to give all of my civil rights restored.

Alarming_Tradition51

What about getting a pardon and then slightly changing your name .

Fearless-Marketing15

Specific-Incident-74

In my state a pardon still shows your conviction… it just says “pardon” next to it. Depends on what you want to do. Do you need to go in front of a licensing board for a career? I’d go for the pardon in that case or to get particular rights restored. However, for a lot of non-licensed work, the pardon isn’t all that you’d assume it is. Look into others that got it in your state. Ask them?

I wish that it were as easy to do as the powers to be say it is...

They make it sound like it's all about doing all your obligations and then contact the governor and BOOM.... You're pardoned and the problem is over.

There's a reason felons can't leave the country.. I would bet the farm that it can also be associated to why it's so difficult to manage basic solutions to problems and move on into an outstanding citizenship and become the icon that our families and communities need so desperately !

Difficult_Coconut164

The Supreme Court is examining the role of governors in withholding assent to state bills, raising questions about democratic accountability and legislative processes.

Judicial Review of Governors' Actions on State Bills

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want