In light of the political killings in Minnesota, remember what Trump did, #minnesota
‘Wrongful removal’: Federal judge nixes Trump’s ‘unlawful’ firing of Biden-appointed product safety board members
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/wrongful-removal-federal-judge-nixes-trumps-unlawful-firing-of-biden-appointed-product-safety-board-members/
Sources: Meta's new superintelligence lab led by Alexandr Wang has mulled abandoning its top open-source model, Behemoth, in favor of developing a closed model (Eli Tan/New York Times)
https://www.
Salmon aren’t breaded and served in a bucket, so he doesn’t care.
“Trump Administration Abandons Deal With Northwest Tribes to Restore Salmon”
https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-salmon-columbia-river-tribes-deal
Also, he’s a r…
It seems like, again, just following the plain logic of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (which, again, I do not subscribe to), that every law passed under Trump, every supreme court justice appointment by Trump, every supreme court ruling by Trump appointed justices, all the illegal firing, etc, must all, necessarily, be null and void.
And if not following from the insurrection act, or from the oath of office, then following from the Declaration of Independence itself. The logic here being that a constitution is a contract between the people and their government, which the later upholds in order to maintain its legal status. The violation of said laws by the government violates "consent of the governed" (which, again, I have issues with the concept entirely but we're just going to ignore that) and therefore nullifies the authority of that government, granting " the right of the people to alter or to abolish it."
That seems a lot like the hard reset some folks have been looking for. Given that existing flaws allowed this state to be reached, it would also be necessary for the true authority to correct those mistakes before assuming authority that derives from these principles.
Now, personally, I don't subscribe to any of this logic but it's interesting to explore, as an outsider, where the logic goes.
"Last Exit Stabi – in 50 Minuten zum Bibliotheksprofi: Vol. I | Geheimauftrag: Kannst Du die Regierungskrise abwenden?" #Bibliotheks-Escape…
The justification that Trump used to claim (illegally) federalize the California National Guard and deploy the marines is from 10 U.S. Code § 252:
> Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Specifically he's called out the "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States."
Trump cannot legally hold office because of his participation in an insurrection. Trump should have been impeached and removed on day 1 of his first administration based on the Emoluments clause. Trump colluded with Russia to manipulate the election, so even his swearing in was a failure of the US government to "enforce the laws of the United States." The supreme court justices he appointed explictly undermined and continue to "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States," as with all of his appointees. The troops he has federalized remain deployed, even after being declared illegal.
When, then, do we call the entire time since January 20th, 2017 to now an insurrection and his government an illegal assembly? Who will order them to "disperse?"
#NoKingsDay
The justification that Trump used to claim (illegally) federalize the California National Guard and deploy the marines is from 10 U.S. Code § 252:
> Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
Specifically he's called out the "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States."
Trump cannot legally hold office because of his participation in an insurrection. Trump should have been impeached and removed on day 1 of his first administration based on the Emoluments clause. Trump colluded with Russia to manipulate the election, so even his swearing in was a failure of the US government to "enforce the laws of the United States." The supreme court justices he appointed explictly undermined and continue to "make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States," as with all of his appointees. The troops he has federalized remain deployed, even after being declared illegal.
When, then, do we call the entire time since January 20th, 2017 to now an insurrection and his government an illegal assembly? Who will order them to "disperse?"
#NoKingsDay