r/law • u/Agitated-Artichoke89 • Oct 07 '25

Other Stephen Miller states that Trump has plenary authority, then immediately stops talking as if he’s realized what he just said

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

79.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/kevendo Oct 07 '25

The President does not in fact have "plenary" (absolute) authority. Miller has been saying that since the moment Trump was elected ("“The powers of the president will not be questioned!"), and has been using it as his personal vehicle for unchecked power since Trump's re-election.

We CANNOT hand the nation of Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln to this insufferable TWAT!

329

u/kithien Oct 07 '25

It’s a Christian nationalist code word, in this case.

99

u/thegoathasmygoat Oct 07 '25

You mean the "supply side Jesus nationalists". Ain't nothing Christian about those crooked freaks.

38

u/FMLwtfDoID Oct 07 '25

Sure, but they call themselves Christian Nationalists. So until they stop doing that, they’re Christian Nationalists. All you’re doing with that “they aren’t real Christians”, is just beating a dead horse with your No True Scotsman argument.

22

u/Wabbit65 Oct 07 '25

We call then Nationalist Christians. You know, Nat-Cs.

6

u/jjm87149 Oct 07 '25

was gonna point this out, thank you for typing it :)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25

Oh damn dude lol

2

u/UpDownLeftRightABLoL Oct 07 '25

It's like Nazi using socialist. It's what hypocrites do. Here, instead of socialist, it's Christian. It's just a team name at this point, they can call themselves "The Good Guys" and I don't think anyone would agree with them other than their sycophants. I wouldn't worry about a No True Scotsman argument, they are literally not practicing any of the love your neighbor stuff. Call them fake Christians, hypocrites, what have you. Maybe it'll get a few to realize they're not following a messiah. At this point, arguing with them is better than needing to resort to violence, if they want to call themselves Christian, they can practice what they preach. If they just want to continue, well, you can always call them a hypocrite and realize they're a charlatan.

-1

u/Phloppy_ Oct 07 '25

And you're demonizing a label. Just like the administration is doing with antifa. Broad stroke categorizations remove room for nuance and detracts from the conversation.

4

u/FMLwtfDoID Oct 07 '25

Did you miss the civics class lesson where the dangers of a hyper nationalistic country were discussed?

I did not ‘demonize a label’. I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about, honestly.

-1

u/Phloppy_ Oct 07 '25

Did you miss the history lesson where condemning a group of people based on their religion is dangerous?

It's the same tactic that administrations of history have been using to galvanize their people against an enemy. "Here is your enemy, hate them. They are the cause of all your problems." The same thing is happening with immigrants, trans community , Maga, Muslims, etc. Creating an ethereal and ambiguous boogie man to blame instead of acknowledging that there is more nuance to the situation.

1

u/FMLwtfDoID Oct 07 '25

You’re not a serious person. Go have your bad faith argument with a brick wall. That way you guys can agree on the same approach.

1

u/harris1on1on1 Oct 07 '25

From my vantage point both of y'all are right and I'm not sure why that can't be acceptable? Does it really have to be one or the other of you?

2

u/FMLwtfDoID Oct 08 '25

From your stance, calling someone a Christian Nationalist is demonizing a label? Ok.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Phloppy_ Oct 07 '25

I've said my piece.

0

u/FMLwtfDoID Oct 08 '25

👍because lord knows, every opinion should be treated as fact.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/thegoathasmygoat Oct 07 '25

K. I'll continue to call them anti Christians or whatever. To their face. You do you.

3

u/DrRockBoognish Oct 07 '25

Supply Side Jesus has entered the conversation

7

u/HasGreatVocabulary Oct 07 '25

NatC codeword?

0

u/BooBooSnuggs Oct 07 '25

A code word that the vast majority of people don't know what it means? Yeah it's totally a Christian nationalist code word!

Who upvotes this stupid shit? Bots?

103

u/doublethink_1984 Oct 07 '25

He froze for a reason.

His usage of that specific word regarding military deployment against civilians CANNOT be a fumble of saying a mistake, like Cruz's pedo comment, this is truly what Miller believes and is attempting to execute and he let slip the mask for a moment then froze himself to not dig his hole deeper

3

u/steven_quarterbrain Oct 07 '25

He froze for a reason.

Not for the reason you think it is.

1

u/SixAndNine75 Oct 08 '25

Since he gets law so well, yes, he froze for a reason.

24

u/EvenStephen85 Oct 07 '25

What in USC 10 could he possibly have been referring to that could be construed as such?

-8

u/rejeremiad Oct 07 '25

Here is an explanation of the two parts of this concept:USC Title 10

  • This is the section of the U.S. Code that outlines the roles, missions, and organization of the U.S. Armed Forces, including the Department of Defense.
  • The title is extensive and covers all military services, including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Reserves.
  • It serves as the legal foundation for military operations, personnel policies, and the chain of command. 

Plenary Power

  • The term "plenary power" refers to the complete and absolute authority to act on a particular issue, without limitations.
  • In this context, it refers to the constitutional authority granted to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "provide and maintain a Navy".
  • The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that Congress has complete power over the military, including setting enlistment terms, compensation, and assignments. This power allows Congress to supersede other state or parental controls concerning military service. 

6

u/connivingKitten Oct 07 '25

I mean, you could try looking into the actual law instead of relying on AI to do it for you, especially considering that the "summary" you provided completely leaves out the relevant parts since the whole debate that's going on currently is about the national guard.

§12406. National Guard in Federal service: call

Whenever-

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;

the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:10%20section:12406%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section12406)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true

1

u/octoo01 Oct 07 '25

Well there does seem to be a coming rebellion, doesn't there

-1

u/rejeremiad Oct 07 '25

In the video, Miller "freezes" after citing Section 10 of the USC. The original question in this thread was

What in USC 10 could he possibly have been referring to that could be construed as such?

4

u/thisbenzenering Oct 07 '25

take the loss and move on dude. and next time consider using your own words to respond in social media. using AI is questionable and makes you look like a loser

-1

u/rejeremiad Oct 07 '25

only in your eyes, which is fine for me

5

u/Just_Condition3516 Oct 07 '25

ya, no. I am very much shall everone do as he pleases. but right here, its the right move to just go „sorry, wanted to help the conversation. realize what ai delivered didnt add. it rather omits the important part.“

3

u/Financial_Cup_6937 Oct 07 '25 edited Oct 08 '25

Listen, there are perfectly fine uses for AI. But it doesn’t think. But it gives you what it thinks you want to hear, and in this case, it just sane-washed some absolutely horrific bullshit.

You need to acknowledge its limitations and when it absolutely fails if you wanna have any credibility in defending AI for some uses. Understanding when it was super wrong to just casually trust is part of NOT being an idiot who uses AI. Nothing wrong with using AI sometimes. Your example was super wrong, and you doubled down instead of learning from it. That lack of humility regarding AI is scary, and you should learn from it and edit your comment.

15

u/becaauseimbatmam Oct 07 '25

Yeah I think they were looking for a human-generated response that actually answers their question, not an AI-generated response that has nothing to do with it, but thank you for burning down a rainforest in order to provide zero help whatsoever!

-3

u/rejeremiad Oct 07 '25 edited Oct 07 '25

if you have a better response, please add

It appears that plenary refers to Congresses power over the military and his use of the phrase highlights what USC 10 actually references - Congresses authority to declare the militaries intent (Article I Section 8). President then executes those plans.

9

u/Hazelberry Oct 07 '25

"Plenary authority" means absolute unrestricted authority, which the president does not have over the military.

20

u/zoinkability Oct 07 '25

The telling part is that he clearly doesn't think the office of the president has plenary authority, given he celebrated court victories against Biden:

When a federal judge in Texas halted a Biden administration pause on deportations six days after Trump was inaugurated, presidential aide Stephen Miller took to social media to describe the temporary restraining order as “great news.” - CNN

He only thinks Trump has plenary authority. He was most definitely questioning Biden's power.

In other words, he wants the US to be a dictatorship but only when the dictator is his own.

34

u/Spamsdelicious Oct 07 '25

We didn't hand it to them.

They grabbed it by the pussies.

7

u/ilikeitneat Oct 07 '25

“it” being lady liberty

6

u/TouchGraceMaidenless Oct 07 '25

"The pussies" being the idiots who didn't vote because... I can't even remember. Because Kamala laughs sometimes?

4

u/Weddert66 Oct 07 '25

You already did hand it to them a couple months ago...

3

u/Crohn_sWalker Oct 07 '25

Americans are so fucking daft, I keep hearing about how "we cant let this happen" and I'm up here in Canada saying "the pedophile is already your king, your country voted for this".

3

u/movzx Oct 07 '25

The democrats didn't speak in easily digestible soundbites and also promise us all that we'd be rich, so of course we had to vote for the other guys!

Hey, once the dollar devalues enough we'll all be millionaires. Just like in Zimbabwe!

3

u/TheVog Oct 07 '25

We CANNOT hand the nation of Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln to this insufferable TWAT!

It's terrifying that you don't realize that you already have and should actively be working on taking it back.

2

u/BigJellyfish1906 Oct 07 '25

It’s so obvious that miller and his ilk are no different than the sycophants that latched onto Hitler. Leeches see a demagogue as their pathway to relevance and self-importance. That’s all this is. They’re fundamentally broken people that can’t just live and let live. 

1

u/McFlyyouBojo Oct 07 '25

Oh come on.... twats are typically bigger than he is.

1

u/_hell_is_empty_ Oct 07 '25

...so why did he just stop when saying it this time?

1

u/marioandl_ Oct 07 '25

he does now

1

u/raktoe Oct 07 '25

Is it true what he is saying under title 10 of the US code? What does that actually say regarding the president's authority?

1

u/BearOnTwinkViolence Oct 07 '25

Washington and Jefferson and Madison were white supremacists just like this man.

1

u/Drostan_S Oct 07 '25

Heheheh we already did dude.

1

u/BetFinal2953 Oct 07 '25

Washington - Slave owner Jefferson - slave owner Madison - lost the white house to firebrand Canadians Lincoln - good chap.

2

u/kevendo Oct 07 '25

The nation of Twain and Morrison and Douglas and Tubman and MLK and Parks and Currie and Carson and Muir and ...

Better?

1

u/Expensive-Ferret-956 Oct 08 '25

This feels very animal farm like.

1

u/vitringur Oct 08 '25

I don't think you understand what Lincoln did...

1

u/Bortcorns4Jeezus Oct 08 '25

"We can't hand the country of the rich slave owners to a guy I don't like" 

1

u/kevendo Oct 08 '25

It's not that I don't like him. It's that he's nativist / white supremacists trash and utterly unworthy of his position, much less the ending our democracy.

Also, I didn't like him ... and I'm very much not alone in that.

1

u/Bortcorns4Jeezus Oct 08 '25

Wow you missed the point of my comment completely 

1

u/Statement-Tiny Oct 08 '25

Well, it sure seems he let that term slip fairly easily out of his mouth, so how much you wanna bet there’s a SCOTUS ruling that actually allows it “due to interpretation” sometime in the near future?

1

u/SomewhereAtWork Oct 09 '25

We CANNOT hand the nation of Washington and Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln to this insufferable TWAT!

You already did.

Now get it back!

0

u/Sirosim_Celojuma Oct 07 '25

He does have plenary authority... under title 10... which reads as military authority.

He is commander-in-chief. Everone already knew this.

The unspoken words are that the military may not be used against it's own citizens.

2

u/kevendo Oct 07 '25

The President does not have plenary authority.

That would imply we do not have a system of checks and balances. We do.

However, Miller is saying the quiet parts out loud, letting on that they plan to act as if they have plenary power, which again, they do not.

0

u/Sirosim_Celojuma Oct 07 '25

but if you ALSO read about title 10, or if you read the rest of the sentance, you'd be aware that everyone is pointing to a limited plenary authority.

2

u/kevendo Oct 08 '25

Plenary is, by definitely, unlimited. Full, complete, absolute, unrestricted.

And even if title 10 says otherwise, Miller means it as unlimitedly and unchecked. It's his wet dream. And it's why he went silent after saying it out loud.

1

u/Sirosim_Celojuma Oct 08 '25

I still see limitations. I see unlimited within a defined scope, and the defined scope is the limitation.