chrisedelson.bsky.social
Assistant professor of government at American University. Area of focus: US presidential power and authoritarian threats to democracy. Writing a book on emergency presidential power in context of Trump. https://www.american.edu/spa/faculty/edelson.cfm
1,625 posts
1,096 followers
562 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
"Loose and irresponsible use of adjectives colors all nonlegal and much legal discussion of presidential powers. "Inherent" powers, "implied" powers, "incidental" powers, "plenary" powers, "war" powers & "emergency" powers are used, often interchangeably & w/out fixed or ascertainable meanings."2/2
comment in response to
post
(2) The Memo states: “protests OR acts of violence” that directly inhibit the execution of the laws, constitute a form of rebellion.
Note the “or”!
That means First Amendment non-violent protests. Not violence. Not riots. Protests.
Such a claim would make authoritarians blush.
comment in response to
post
yes. I spoke recently with a decidedly non-trump person who also said she is concerned about extremism on "both sides". anecdotal, of course
comment in response to
post
The EO is crazy broad, and paves the way for the administration to use military force against protestors on American soil anywhere they want. Preemptively using the military in this way is a wholly inappropriate use of military personnel and assets, and a flagrant abuse of power. 2/
comment in response to
post
Undocumented immigrants aren't committing any real crime that society at large will react to in the same way as assault or theft or murder, etc. Even state and local law enforcement mostly ignore immigration laws. You are trying to force something that's unnatural and untenable for a free society.
comment in response to
post
Apologies if I am missing something here, but couldn't trump attempt to solve the problem by invoking the Insurrection Act? of course, there is no *legitimate* basis to invoke the Insurrection Act...
comment in response to
post
No president has ever federalized the National Guard for purposes of responding to potential future civil unrest anywhere in the country. Preemptive deployment is literally the opposite of deployment as a last resort. It would be a shocking abuse of power and the law. 15/19
comment in response to
post
ICE activity is happening across the country, and will likely draw protests in many places. Trump is authorizing military deployment nationwide, regardless of whether protests involve violence *or are even happening yet.* 14/19
comment in response to
post
That’s alarming enough. But Trump has also authorized deployment of troops anywhere in the country where protests against ICE are occurring or are likely to occur, even if they are entirely peaceful. That is unprecedented and a clear abuse of the law. 2/19
comment in response to
post
reminds me of a Palantir ad I saw in Philly: "A moment of reckoning has arrived for the West. Our culture has fallen into shallow consumerism while abandoning national purpose...We built Palantir to ensure America's future...we build to dominate."
comment in response to
post
I think it's fair to say the rule of law does not exist in the US at the moment. That doesn't mean the legal system is dead, but does mean we can't be assured that law applies equally to all and is administered by independent judges.
comment in response to
post
I think it's fair to say the rule of law does not exist in the US at the moment. That doesn't mean the legal system is dead, but does mean we can't be assured that law applies equally to all and is administered by independent judges.
comment in response to
post
An entire generation of people raised on memes and Fox News who are just completely unable to separate propaganda from reality. If there is a crisis, it’s epistemological. Fascists will try to bend reality to their ideology, but this always fails in the long run with tons of damage along the way.
comment in response to
post
and if you call out the national guard and tell them to, against their training, their mission, and likely the intuitions of the service members, use force against protesters, there is a good chance you are on the path to losing face, with no other way to escalate. (3/?)
comment in response to
post
and there it is. not the insurrection act! www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...
comment in response to
post
not an exact parallel but makes me think of Hoover and Bonus Marchers in 1932: www.nps.gov/articles/bon...
comment in response to
post
Either way, it’s a very bad symptom that we are in such a deteriorated situation that a fight like this one is taking place. It shows our democracy is in terrible shape, well beyond the individuals in question.
comment in response to
post
not my area of expertise, but this made me think of the contrast between German and French officers in WWI (assuming Tuchman correctly described this in the Guns of August--again, not my area of expertise)
comment in response to
post
yep--national failure and constitutional failure. So dizzying--how does one move ahead in these circumstances?