> I've even seen you personally advocate for policies that, in my mind, cross extremely bright lines of constitutional protection.
You’re talking about putative “bright line rules” in a made up version of the constitution that has four branches of government and with “independent” civil servants running the show. I’m talking about the real constitution here, as it was understood by the people who wrote it.
> Especially when the president is already illegally deploying US troops within our own borders.
Judge Breyer’s recent order in the LA case upheld that the President can deploy the National Guard to protect federal property: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/PCA%2... (“Finally, the Court’s injunctive relief in this case is narrowly tailored to address Defendants’ statutory violations. The injunction applies only to Defendants’ use of the National Guard in California, not nationally. Defendants are not required to withdraw the 300 National Guard troops currently stationed in Los Angeles, nor are they barred from using troops consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act. In fact, the Court essentially just orders Defendants to follow the (unedited) training materials that they introduced in this trial. See Task Force 51 Training Slides at 6. Thus, for example, federal troops can continue to protect federal property in a manner consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act.”).
The judge found that the troops had acted outside the scope of that authority. Much of that will certainly be overturned. For example, the judge found that the authority to protect federal property didn’t extend to “setting up protective perimeters, traffic blockades, crowd control, and the like.” (P. 42). It’s unlikely Congress intended to authorize the President to deploy the National Guard to protect federal property, but that doesn’t extend to routine measures that would be used to achieve such protection.
At best, we’ve got 300 national guard troops in Los Angeles and we’re quibbling about exactly what they can and cannot do.