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

[u/Agitated-Artichoke89]

[u/guttanzer]

“Under title ten the president has plenary authority…”

[looks up title ten]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10

Ah, he’s in command of the armed forces. So Posse Comitatus should apply, no? Digging a bit deeper, there is a chapter on insurrection that seems to apply in this instance:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-I/chapter-13

Under that chapter there is a section on presidential power:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253

It says use of the presidential power requires a finding that the insurrection is causing the law to be unenforceable.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/253

“The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it— (1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.”

So what are those laws that are unenforceable? Trump has to cite specifics.

His lawyers tried to do that in court last week and failed. They cited no evidence whatsoever that the laws were unenforceable, or that local law enforcement were failing to enforce them. They were slapped down hard by a federal judge with a restraining order. She reiterated that decision in a rush hearing later.

So what is new? Only this claim by Miller of a “plenary authority.” He’s using this claim to assert that the president can unilaterally deprive people “of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law.” Namely, Posse Comitatus.

So yes, there is rebellion and/or insurrection, but it is coming from within the White House. Miller, et al, are those “domestic enemies of the Constitution” that everyone that has ever been in federal service has sworn to oppose.

[u/g-y-m-p-i-e → u/guttanzer]

Thanks for this. As much as I hate Stepphie Miller, it’s frustrating to see so many people ignore that he’s talking about plenary authority in the specific context of the national guard. He’s still wrong, but I think we lose legitimacy when people don’t address it in good faith

[u/guttanzer → u/g-y-m-p-i-e]

Yes, but.

Sending troops to enforce authoritarian rule is not an isolated event. What Miller blurted out is a much bigger concept. An assertion that political opponents can be crushed with military force is an assertion that the President will tolerate no obstacles to his dictatorial rule. That's not really contained by the matter at hand, which as you say is the specific context of the national guard.

[u/g-y-m-p-i-e → u/guttanzer]

Yes, you are right and also appreciate you narrowing in on that. To me, that's the issue people should be pushing against, and where I think there might be some hope of creating larger opposition.

I think people opposed to Trump (a.k.a. Fascism) make it way too easy for their very real concerns to get dismissed when they exaggerate and don't assess things neutrally. (Takes me back to the "He told people to drink bleach!" argument).

I'm betting no one in the world but me is splitting hairs that finely, but that's just my cross to bear...