The working check is the Posse Commitatus Act and the Insurrection Act. And then there is the check of the judiciary.5thhorseman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 11:10 amI would think a working democracy would have checks and balances to prevent this kind of slow creep into authoritarianism, regardless of what "place society is in". Besides, there are plenty of other solutions, like the National Guard (under state control), that are available. This is why the Posse Comitus act allows only very limited use of the military in domestic situations (e.g. Insurrection).Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 9:26 amWell the people have only themselves to blame for society getting to a place where a federal government could even attempt to justify the need for military intervention on a domestic level.Per wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 7:58 amI would assume that is exactly why it is done in the first place. Democracy gradually replaced by military rule.Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 01, 2025 3:18 pm The check in my head on this is that deploying them in this manner could have the effect of slowly getting the general populace to a place where they find soldiers on their streets a normal thing.....that could open a door to a more authoritarian society, and nobody will have noticed it happening.
Due process removed while people get rounded up by masked troopers and detained indefinitely.
Unfortunately with the cooperation of Congress there seems to be no limit to what Trump can attempt. Checks and balances have failed entirely.
One allowable use of federalization of the guard goes beyond insurrection, it applies in other circumstances where there is an unlawful combination that hinder the enforcement of federal law. Or when state authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law. Or to secure rights. Remember, the guard, federalized by President Eisenhower, escorted the Little Rock nine as part of desegregation.
To be sure, there were segregationist southerners claiming their city/state was a military state, and I am sure many expressed fear that the military presence would be permanent. These are concerns were real ones, but so too is the question what you do in a situation where federal law enforcement is being actively obstructed and the state is unwilling or incapable to address the problem.
I don't know whether the disruptions in Portland are actively obstructing ICE operations, but if they are, then we are in a factual category that if local and state officials cannot eliminate the obstruction, the consideration of an exceptional federal presence is at least in the bucket of consideration because it is a circumstance where law permits use of the guard. It doesn't mean they have to be deployed, but its why the law permits the exception. Personally, I would want to ensure all other more reasonable options were exhausted (and that there is truly a material obstruction to operations).
Understand that the guard being used to facilitate a locally unpopular law is the same in 1957 Arkansas as it is in 2025 Portland. The locally unpopular law in Arkansas was a federal court desegregation order; in Portland it is the immigration laws. The local/state response in Arkansas was a government opposing the order and a faction of the public willing to maintain segregation through physical obstruction and threats of violence. In Portland, (again, I don't know the facts but I know the claim) it is (claimed to be) a faction of the public willing to physically obstruct ICE operations and threats of violence against those enforcing the law, and a local government who has a sanctuary city policy to not cooperate with ICE and who is unable or unwilling to enforce local laws on the disruptors to permit ICE's operations. Query: is Arkansas good because you like the result and the federal law and Portland bad because you don't want to see the federal law enforced?
IF the facts are such that there IS an obstruction and the guard is used ONLY to eliminate the obstruction to federal enforcement of federal law (and once removed, so too are the Guard), then this is a limited use of the Guard, and its being done for reasons that seem to be contemplated by law (the courts will have their say). One can be vigilant against the routine use of the guard as police and recognize there can also be proper uses for it, and that there are going to be more difficult cases in grayer areas that people may disagree as to the propriety (and lawfulness) of the Guard's activation but that one is in a grayer area doesn't mean Fascism is next.
You go tiger.
