Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't see how this will be enforceable.


I do. ICE agents show up hiding their face, Local or State cops put them in handcuffs for breaking the law.


Federal agents then do same for state authorities for obstructing justice.


Hence why this will be decided by the Supreme Court, as it's fundamentally a question of state vs federal power and the limits of each.


Yeah, call me overly cynical but I'm waiting for this cycle to play out:

- CA bans face-masks for law-enforcement

- White House issues executive order requiring face-mask use for all federal law enforcement

- Both are placed on hold pending litigation, allowing the status quo (face-masks) to continue

- Litigation eventually winds up at the Supreme Court

- Supreme Court once again confirms White House can do whatever the hell it wants, Constitution be damned.

I really hate this timeline. Like, a lot.


The en vogue 'Supreme Court always sides with the Administration' is a lazy and inaccurate take. (That's usually used to justify 'And that's why I don't need to spend time looking into the actual details and just give up')

If people actually took the time to read the opinions [0], they'd realize...

1. Many of the 'allow the administration to continue' rulings are overriding stays, rather than actual decisions. Those cases are still pending in the courts and will eventually end up back at the Supreme Court.

2. Of the actual Supreme Court decisions, the news typically gives the most dumbed-down, hot take version.

3. Even to people without a legal background, much of the decision or dissent is written in plain English, attempts to lay out the rationale, and can be read by anyone with a secondary education.

[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24


> (That's usually used to justify 'And that's why I don't need to spend time looking into the actual details and just give up')

Just FWIW, giving up wasn't my point at all. I'm just not particularly optimistic that putting anything in front of the current SCOTUS bench will result in a lot of welcome rulings. That doesn't mean we don't seek legal remedies; it just means we need to plan for them to not work out and act accordingly. I'm heartened by the amount of work people are putting in at the state level and getting appropriately creative with bending the rules — for instance, the recent effort to redefine corporate powers at the state level in order to obviate _Citizens United_.


I would hazard a guess of which group says "I'm not paid enough for this" first - with the billions of funding just given to ICE.


The FBI? Led by Kash “I put on Visine with a mop” Patel?


lol. Good luck with that


Do ICE agents have super powers or something?


Friend, it doesn't take superpowers. It just takes being on the same team.


Yeah, they're cops. Cops aren't going to arrest other cops. Their superpower is being the people who are supposed to enforce the law, if they decide to break it who is going to stop them?


Uncle Sam has the biggest military on Earth. State troopers wouldn’t last longer than the time to deploy.


Americans always talk about how they have the second amendment to stand up to tyrannical government.

Meanwhile tank man had a shopping bag.


While a powerful image in the west, tank man did not effect change.


The video is much cooler than the photo.


If "Uncle Sam" deploys the military, that's pretty much it for the USA.


They already have - the national guard.


The National Guard and Active Duty are very different, legally speaking.

https://www.csg.org/2024/09/25/military-101-orders/

What section of US law they're activated/deployed under determines whether or not they can legally be used in an internal law enforcement capacity.

And generally speaking, federalized forces (either active or NG) cannot ever be used as law enforcement.

Hence why, despite the posturing and marketing of 'sending the military in', this administration is specifically using federalized military forces only in non-law enforcement capacities (and then encouraging the freed up state/local law enforcement to focus on law enforcement).


That is enlightening, thank you.

The national guard was illegally deployed over a fake emergency, but AFAIK the troops themselves did not perform any additional constitutional violations.


I'm talking about the real military. The one explicitly prohibited in the constitution for be used for policing Americans.


Picking up trash in dc.


> Uncle Sam has the biggest military on Earth. State troopers wouldn’t last longer than the time to deploy

This is civil war. In a civil war there is no Uncle Sam. Just human beings from different states and of different political persuasions who need to decide what they do with their firepower, and whose orders they obey.


And how did that work out last time for the “misbehaving” states?


Currently only the widely unpopular executive branch of federal government is misbehaving.


Congress and the judiciary are misbehaving as well, otherwise either one could easily put a stop to the destructionists. In fact one might say the manic demented guy barking orders at the rest of the executive is just a deliberate attention-drawing point of a much wider conspiracy.


That's not true at all. Congress could remove Trump in a week if they weren't complicit. SCOTUS could put a stop to much of the stuff he's doing if they weren't complicit.


That military continually gets kicked out when its legal right to be there is called into question.


I don’t believe they’d leave with their own in jeopardy. However, we’re deep into uncharted territory here so hard to say definitively how it would all go down.


I'd say it's high time for state governors to start deploying their National Guards to keep order. The federal gangs are deliberately stirring up chaos to create new pretexts for the assertion of federal control. In addition to the obvious problem of the masked kidnap gangs undermining public trust and order, there have been many reports of groups of vehicles with federal plates forming moving blockades on highways, assaulting motorists, etc - seemingly whatever they can do to try and create confrontational situations. A straightforward guess is that these aren't even yesterday's officers with a nominal desire to uphold the law and go home at the end of the day, but rather loser militia types that have been quickly deputized to go into "blue states" and create problems for their perceived enemies.

Deploying Guards would also be a good way to start building some institutional momentum for defending our country - preempting following illegal orders (like what happened in CA), sussing out traitors in the chain of command, and mitigating the dynamic where much of traditional state law enforcement is sympathetic to the destructionists.


No, but federal law trumps state


There is no federal law here.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: