The article discusses the legal implications of Donald Trump's potential seizure of the National Guard to assist ICE, countered by objections from state governments. It cites constitutional law, notably the Tenth Amendment, to emphasize the likely legal issues Trump would encounter. The piece humorously mentions the possibility of martial law due to the Epstein files and critiques the justification of protests against ICE as a rebellion. It also brings attention to the largely ignored Third Amendment, exploring its relevance in a hypothetical scenario where soldiers could be quartered without consent.
Trump's moves to seize control of the National Guard for ICE, amid state objections, likely face legal challenges given Tenth Amendment protections, despite current justifications.
The Insurrection Act's application to current protests is tenuous at best; protests against ICE should not be characterized as rebellions under the legal standards.
The Third Amendment's application could be challenged should troops be stationed without consent during peacetime, suggesting unaddressed implications for Constitutional law.
This unprecedented legal landscape prompts law professors to rethink Constitutional interpretations, stressing the need for students to prepare for dynamic changes.
Collection
[
|
...
]