1. It's not entirely unlawful. This is a power that he has. This has been done in the past - multiple times without the consent of the governors in question. [1]

2. Because it's not clearly and entirely and immediately unlawful, and would take a court to rule about it (the courts are also fucked - SCOTUS recently ruled that lower courts are expected to defer to whatever batshit version of reality the government's lawyers are peddling) people in the chain of command can't clearly tell if the orders they are receiving are obviously illegal, and don't have good grounds to disobey them.

3. Also, that's, like, the way to civil war.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine - When integration began on September 4, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called in to "preserve the peace". Originally at orders of the governor, they were meant to prevent the black students from entering due to claims that there was "imminent danger of tumult, riot and breach of peace" at the integration. However, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, which federalized the Arkansas National Guard and ordered them to support the integration on September 23 of that year, after which they protected the African American students.[4]

▲

AnimalMuppet 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

In the Little Rock case, the governor was using the National Guard to defy a Supreme Court order. That gives the president more leeway than he would have if the situation was just "no, the governor doesn't want the National Guard here".

▲

mindslight 4 days ago | parent [-]

It might be interesting in and of itself to force to Supreme Council to go on record with hard decisions about these things. The impression I've gotten is that they've delayed issuing any actual rulings, just lots of non-binding preliminary "advice" to lower courts. I don't know if this is them trying to politically hedge so they can unwind if the fascist takeover ultimately fails, or whether they anticipate real elections putting Democrats back in power and they want to be able to put the brakes on the autocratic executive then, or what.

	▲	vkou 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> or whether they anticipate real elections putting Democrats back in power and they want to be able to put the brakes on the autocratic executive then, or what. That's the more likely hedge. Their skin won't be in the fire in the case of the first one.

▲

mindslight 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

re (2) then state governors need to start with auditing the chains of command, to make sure they are still loyal to the United States Constitution and won't be following anti-American orders from the anti-Constitutional fascists.

re (1) then it's time to start standing up state laws that assert sovereignty, and legal supremacy over autocratic dictats from the out of control federal executive / judiciary.

re (3) yes, that's where we basically are. Red state (un)patriot militias hopped up on social media rah-rah juice about how they've been wronged, being sent into blue states and let loose to attack citizens. If our American ideal of Constitutionally-limited government is going to endure, then states need to start picking up the slack for the governance being overtly shirked by the federal anarcho-tyranny.

I don't like any of it and the dice are stacked against us, but the sooner we acknowledge the reality the better we can defend against the all-too-plausible possibility of our country going up the smokestacks of Trumpist big tech fascism.

▲

vkou 4 days ago | parent [-]

> re (2) then state governors need to start with auditing the chains of command, to make sure they are still loyal to the United States Constitution and won't be following anti-American orders from the anti-Constitutional fascists.

1. What makes you think they don't?

2. There's a trick to it. It's difficult to conclusively tell if an order is unlawful, and there will be incredibly serious consequences to anyone who refuses one that isn't. And at the rate the current court rulings are going, dropping a fucking nuclear bomb on Ohio may be found to be constitutional and lawful.

> it's time to start standing up state laws that assert sovereignty

Good luck asserting sovereignty without an army. See point #2.

> yes, that's where we basically are

If that's the only way out of it, we've already lost.

	▲	AnimalMuppet 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> there will be incredibly serious consequences to anyone who refuses one that isn't. There will be incredibly serious consequences to anyone who refuses even one that is. It's going to take a long time - years - before they are vindicated, but the punishment is going to start immediately.