President Trump

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
irvinehomeowner said:
I'll answer you when you answer me.

Take the L babeeeeeeee!
Click to expand...

Even ChatGPT says you're wrong. Sad really.

Does Trump's deployment of the national guard violate the 10th amendment?

  • The Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of federal military forces in domestic law enforcement, except where authorized by Congress or the Constitution.
  • However, the President may invoke the Insurrection Act (a law passed by Congress) to deploy federal troops — including the National Guard — to respond to civil unrest, rebellion, or to enforce federal authority.
  • Courts have generally upheld these powers as constitutional and not a violation of the 10th Amendment, because they are explicitly granted federal powers.
 
You know what's sad? You can't read.

And now you're trying to use Chatgpt to help you while previously saying it was not correct.

Desperate measures from a desperate man.

Again... Very simple:

Bring up the ruling!!!
 
Liar Loan said:
Why don't you post it so I can read what you are reading?
Click to expand...

Because you need to learn to back up what you say to me so you can be better next time. You've challenged me on not reading the ruling, not knowing enough about it to say it's unconstitutional and even claiming nobody ruled it that way.

In the past you have challenged the definition of "insurrection"... you were wrong (and I might add I used the same definition source you cited).

You were incorrect about what "armed" is.

And what do you mean "read what I'm reading"... it the ruling by Judge Breyer that YOU keep saying does not cite violation of the constitution.

I even gave you a hint... keywords "10th amendment".

Plus if you find the ruling and post it, you can't blame me for using a bad source.
 
I was curious... LL must be using LiarGPT:

<<

Does Trump's deployment of the national guard in LA violate the 10th amendment?

ChatGPT said:​

Based on the most recent court rulings:

Yes — Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles was found to conflict with the 10th Amendment’s protections of state authority, in addition to violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

Here’s why:

  1. State Control of the Guard
    • Under the Constitution and federal statutes, the Governor normally commands the Guard for state missions.
    • The President can only federalize the Guard under specific conditions (e.g., invasion, rebellion, or obstruction of federal law under the Insurrection Act or 10 U.S.C. § 12406).
  2. Trump’s Action
    • He attempted to deploy the Guard in Los Angeles without Governor Newsom’s consent and outside the narrow statutory triggers.
    • Courts said this was an “ultra vires” (beyond authority) act and intruded into powers reserved to the states.
  3. Court Ruling (Sept. 2, 2025)
    • Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump’s order violated federal law (Posse Comitatus Act) and reflected an unconstitutional effort to use the Guard as a federal police force.
    • While the ruling focused most directly on the Posse Comitatus Act, the decision also emphasized federalism and Tenth Amendment principles — that the President cannot strip the state of its control over the Guard without meeting statutory and constitutional requirements.
👉 Bottom line: Trump’s LA deployment was unconstitutional because it invaded state powers protected by the Tenth Amendment and also violated the Posse Comitatus Act’s limits on military use in civilian policing.

Would you like me to quote the exact passage from Judge Breyer’s opinion where he addresses the 10th Amendment issue directly?

>>

Notice I use "LA" in my prompt because AI prefers you to be more precise. I also have the exact passage but I want LL to learn how to use the Internet properly.

Show me the receipt LL!!!!
 
You're not talking about the 10th Amendment ruling that was blocked on appeal by the ultra-liberal, radical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are you?


Yes, Judge Charles R. Breyer’s ruling—finding that President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles violated the Tenth Amendment (and federal statutory authority under Title 10 § 12406)—has been temporarily blocked on appeal.


  • On June 12, 2025, Judge Breyer issued an order requiring the federal government to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. He determined the deployment exceeded statutory authority and breached Tenth Amendment limits. AP NewsStates United Democracy CenterWikipedia+2Wikipedia+2CalMatters
  • Just hours before that order was set to take effect, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay, suspending it pending further proceedings. AP NewsCalMattersWikipedia
  • The appeals panel found—based on precedent interpreting Section 12406—that the President likely acted within his authority under the statute, warranting deference and justifying the stay.
 
Liar Loan said:
The reason it's not unconstitutional is because, if you had actually read about the case, they are not challenging it on Constitutional grounds, but based on a statute called the Comatatus Act of 1878.
Click to expand...

Liar Loan said:
Please cite the section of the Constitution being violated then. Even the people challenging the guard deployment in court aren't making the argument you are making.
Click to expand...

These are your own words. Not only did Judge Breyer rule it was unconstitutional and making the same argument I have but now you have cited why.

Regardless of it being currently blocked, it was ruled on by a judge, contrary to your accusations of me not reading.

Say it... "I was wrong IHO."
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Regardless of it being currently blocked, it was ruled on by a judge, contrary to your accusations of me not reading.
Click to expand...
doesn’t matter what the lower court judges said, they are now proven wrong…the Supreme Court has said it is constitutional and that’s all that matters now😂😂😂👍🏽🇺🇸
 
morekaos said:
doesn’t matter what the lower court judges said, they are now proven wrong…the Supreme Court has said it is constitutional and that’s all that matters now😂😂😂👍🏽🇺🇸
Click to expand...
LL is going to scold you for not reading.

The point was a judge did find the guard deployment unconstitutional.

Also, according to your article, the ICE raid ruling and the constitutionality of a Guard deployment while related, are separate.

And again, even if overturned that doesn't change the fact that a judge did rule the Guard deployment was a violation of the 10th Amendment, which LL claimed did not happen but eventually had to cite the ruling.

Double team fail. 1 + 1 = 2x loss, how's that for mathematics?

Maybe you should learn to use ChatGPT?
 
The Supreme Court has the final say no matter what a lower court may “think”. If they overturn, than whatever that lower court may have opined is “wrong”. As for chat gtp…I’ll use my own brain to form my own opinions, thank you. I prefer not to let the singularity think and argue for me🤷🏽‍♂️👎🏽😂😂😂🇺🇸
 
Last edited:
irvinehomeowner said:
These are your own words. Not only did Judge Breyer rule it was unconstitutional and making the same argument I have but now you have cited why.

Regardless of it being currently blocked, it was ruled on by a judge, contrary to your accusations of me not reading.

Say it... "I was wrong IHO."
Click to expand...
I was not wrong IHO, because it is currently being challenged based on the Comitatus Act of 1878 as the prior ruling was so bad it had already been blocked by the ultra liberal, radical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Even they don't agree with this judge (or you) that it was unconstitutional.

The 10th Amendment is different than other amendments because it doesn't enshrine a personal right in the Constitution. It's basically guidance for the courts on how to interpret the Constitution (Federal > States > People). This is why you almost never see the Supreme Court making rulings based on 10th Amendment grounds.

In this case, there clearly was a Federal statute called the Insurrection Act that President Trump was invoking to put down the violent mobs in Los Angeles pursuant to the ICE riots in June. The existence of that statute means Congress specifically granted the President power to federalize the National Guard during insurrections.

The fact remains you didn't read about the first Breyer ruling (until I called you out), or that it was blocked by the 9th Circuit, or about the second Breyer ruling which is not a 10th Amendment challenge, but a challenge based on the Comitatus Act of 1878.


The More You Know: Reading beats outsourcing your thoughts to ChatGPT.

1757530609203.jpeg
 
Keep dancing. Read your own words. You were all Posse Comitatus not realizing the judge (not me) cited the 10th amendment violation and now you are arguing the 10th amendment isn't part of the Constitution?

Reading is how I knew what you didn't.

Keep doubling down, just makes you look worse. Morekaos trying to jump in to rescue you and he ends up foot in mouth too. This is fun... Been owning you for years now.
 
just because a lower court said something that was wrong, and eventually corrected by the Supreme Court, when it was proved to be wrong, doesn’t make it, right. Talk about spinning like a whirling dervish. Your statement was technically right for the day that he said it, but was eventually proven to be wrong. Negative multiplied by a negative equals a positive. Now that’s math😂😂😂👍🏽🇺🇸
 
Read what LL claimed. He said no one claimed it was unconstitutional like I have. But someone did, a judge. Doesn't matter if it was upheld or not, someone did.

And now he is trying to pivot saying rhe 10th amendment is not really part of the Constitution. It's actually a very important part because it outlines limits of federal power.

I know you all want this to be Trumperica but that's why we are not England.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
Read what LL claimed. He said no one claimed it was unconstitutional like I have. But someone did, a judge. Doesn't matter if it was upheld or not, someone did.

And now he is trying to pivot saying rhe 10th amendment is not really part of the Constitution. It's actually a very important part because it outlines limits of federal power.

I know you all want this to be Trumperica but that's why we are not England.
Click to expand...
you’re splitting hairs, LL was saying that it is constitutional, some wayward judge did said it was unconstitutional, but in the end LL was right, and it was proven out by the Supreme Court. You were technically right for about a day so, in a warped way, you’re both right😂😂😂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top