If you believe the Preesident lacks authority to use a military branch or the Militia within the borders of the United States...

Article 2 grants the president the power to command the military. That only specifies who the military answers to, not what the military can be used for. This is a massive category error.

The limits of what a president can do with the military are codified into law (the Posse Commotitus act and the insurrection act come to mind) but you don’t need to know that to know your interpretation is wrong; the constitution expressly grants the sole power to declare war to Congress. If the intent was to give plenary authority to the President, the framers would not have done that.

Moreover, this interpretation flies in the face of everything the constitution sought to guard against. What the framers feared was a tyrant, granting the president the legal authority to use the military against US citizens is the exact opposite of everything that motivated the American revolution in the first place.

TBH I think Trump is probably using the guard to troll democrats or rage bait leftists in big cities.

Yet again, you are demonstrating your complete ignorance of the US Constitution and associated federal laws. Maybe your simplistic MAGA audience will appreciate a simpleton three-word phrase (Commander in Chief) taken out of context as supporting the lawlessness of your MAGA movement, but the fact is, this isn’t the first time a lawless white supremacist movement needed to be legally suppressed in the country.

The last time was at the end of Reconstruction when white supremacists returned to political power in both southern states and Congress, in response to white supremacist efforts to the re-establish Jim Crow in the former Confederacy, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to ensure the military could not be used to further that racist and unconstitutional agenda. There are no constitutional exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, nowhere does the Constitution expressly empower the president to use the military to execute the law, and it is willfully stupid to think that the title “Commander in Chief” found in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants the President totalitarian control over use of the military.

The broader principle, forbidding the military to be allowed to interfere in the affairs of civilian government was a core American value that was legally embodied in the Constitution’s division of power over the military between Congress and the president, and in the guarantees of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

It’s clear that your racist MAGA agenda is driven by people whose cognitive ability is too limited to grasp more than a three-word phrase, but for those of us with the intelligence to understand more, the law explicitly forbids the use of the military to enforce domestic laws.

TBH I think Trump is probably using the guard to troll democrats or rage bait leftists in big cities.

Which is clearly illegal.

The president as the ultimate troll? Who'd a think it

Shouldn't maga actually be forming militias against trump? Isn't a centralized government terrorizing the states and people exactly what gun nuts say the purpose of the second amendment is?

Shouldn't maga actually be forming militias against trump? Isn't a centralized government terrorizing the states and people exactly what gun nuts say the purpose of the second amendment is?

MAGA is more afraid of diversity than dictatorship.

Trump needs the military to reunite the Reich. It’s a campaign promise.

the constitution expressly grants the sole power to declare war to Congress.

Did Congress declare war against the Southern States? Against Native Americans? Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? Iraq? Iran... Yet we have hade military conflict in all of them, and more.

Nope. Congress has declared war only 5 times in US history: the War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II, and more of those have been fought on what is now our soil, but was contested, then. Was the life of those presidents endangered by opposition rhetoric to the point of actual assassination attempts? So, why is Trump singled out as the enemy of Dimocrats. Don't bother answering the question, it will just be more hate. You don't need it.

TBH I think Trump is probably using the guard to troll democrats or rage bait leftists in big cities.

I get the same feeling as well. Nobody is forcing those governors and mayors to support attacks on federal law enforcement officers.

Not sure that the President gives a monkey's.

Did Congress declare war against the Southern States? Against Native Americans? Korea? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? Iraq? Iran... Yet we have hade military conflict in all of them, and more.

When your argument fails, just move the goal posts…

So now we’ve abandoned the position that the constitution expressly grants the president the power to utilize the military to enforce civilian law at his unquestionable discretion and moved to “it’s ok cause that’s what everyone else did”. Ok.

Your argument still fails. The inserrection act clearly covered state succession, the rest were nearly all foreign conflicts. We’ve never before seen a president use the military against US citizens simply because he can, which is essentially Trump’s justification other than him claiming cities like Portland are “on fire” which is just psychotically delusional.

Was the life of those presidents endangered by opposition rhetoric to the point of actual assassination attempts?

Wow. So we’re now back to the classic MAGA retort where half the country is responsible for the actions of two deranged republicans, and not even the Republican half.

This is what having no argument looks like. Pathetic.

BTW, Lincoln was assassinated, in case you forgot.

BTW BTW, thanks for yet another example of a strictly MAGA talking point coming from the guy who swears he’s not MAGA.

Considering that republican cities on average have higher murder rates do u at least agree that trump is singling out and thus harassing democratic cities? Especially since they dont want him there to begin with?

By whose consideration? Source, pls. because the data I see from FBI does not say that.

Trump thinks he bought America and now our whole country is just some business he owns that's why he doesn't understand all these investigations.

Looks like he's bought you. Can't ignore him, can you? Try.

Y^'all who reply to this string seem to think you know who my subject its. Have I even mentioned his name?

One-trick ponies, one and all.

Looks like he's bought you. Can't ignore him, can you? Try.

What a stupid post.

He’s the current president of the United States who is tearing up the constitution as he floods our cities with military and unmasked unidentifiable thugs who are whisking people away because they speak Spanish or look brown. No, we’re not going to ignore him.

Y^'all who reply to this string seem to think you know who my subject its. Have I even mentioned his name? 

You didn’t have to genius. He’s doing it ^^^ right now and is the only president who has ever treated the US military like his personal flying monkeys. To even pretend you’re talking about someone else would be grossly disingenuous and you know that.

whisking people 

That is the correct noun. "Americans" would be incorrect.

That is the correct noun. "Americans" would be incorrect.

Wrong as usual. Many Americans have gotten caught up in these ice raids and illegally detained because ice officers decided they were guilty until proven innocent. I don’t know why right wingers have such a difficult time understanding this; due process isn’t something you can guarantee to some groups and not others. The whole point of affording it to everyone is so that those who are supposed to have certain rights are guaranteed to enjoy them. Without that it’s not a right, which means none of us get to enjoy them.

Deportation is due process.

That isn’t what we’re talking about, but I get it, you have nothing left to say so you need to pretend you do. It’s cool.

Then stop talking about due process like it's one of your usual oversimplifications. Detaining and questioning when ICE already has evidence of undocumented people in the area is due process. Deportation is due process. Your side goes so far in oversimplifications that it calls legal deportations "kidnappings." Your side calls detaining for questioning "whisking."

Stop with the oversimplifications. Then you can use the phrase "due process" seriously, and not the oversimplified way Al Capone would have used it.

You really think you’re onto something with this “oversimplification” retort. It’s kind of amusing.

Deportation isn’t due process, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Due process is what ensures that every person goes through the checks put in place to prevent the government from taking rights away from people who are supposed to be afforded to them.

The point I made which you don’t seem to want to touch with a ten foot pole, probably because you know I’m right, is that due process isn’t a right you can grant to some groups and not others, it’s an all or nothing proposition. So no, it’s not ok when the government violates due process only for illegals because due process is what ensures they’re illegal in the first place. Without that none of our rights are safe.

Deportation isn’t due process, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Look it up then. Come back to me when you have done your due diligence on due process for civil infractions. What you may be implying is that people who enter illegally and break a criminal law should have a right to the due process for that crime and not the due process of deportation for the civil offense defined by your Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(6)(A)(i). That's not a right that exists in your country, because your laws allow your prosecutors to drop the criminal offense under "discretion," charge for the civil offense, and the use due process for that civil offense. You might make a wild racist argument that declares "brown skin" people should have a right to a day in court. But that's not how your laws work, regardless of your racist ideologies or religions.

There are no guarantees for anyone to have a criminal trial or any extra due process beyond what the law provides for their legal status and the nature of the offense. If the prosecutors charge a civil offense, the due process is immediate deportation, no questions asked.

There are no guarantees for anyone to have a criminal trial or any extra due process beyond what the law provides

If it goes beyond what the law provides then it is by definition, not due process.

Google the definition of “due”.

Deportation isn’t due process, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

Come back to me when you have done your due diligence on due process for civil infractions. Come back to me when you have done your due diligence on the due process of deportation for the civil offense defined by your Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(6)(A)(i).