Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 55m

Time to find these assholes and charge them with murder.

State crime. No pardons from Daddy Dumpypants

Get your police investigating, @govpritzker.illinois.gov

Chicago 21222 @chicago21222.bsky.social · 4h

Guess they are A-OK with killing fathers in Chicago streets.

www.reuters.com/world/us/chi...

www.reuters.com

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 59m

OH MY GOD, THIS WARZONE LOOKS LIKE HELL

I mean, it looks like a lot of fun!

Andreas 🇨🇦 Fella 💙 @andreasor.bsky.social · 4h

persianbee: #Portland #warzone BTW #fdt

1 3 6

Reposted by KMG365

Hakeem Jeffries @hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social · 3h

Day 11 of the Republican Shutdown.

Donald Trump is back on the golf course.

House Republicans have cancelled votes for a third straight week.

And Democrats are continuing the fight to protect your healthcare.

80 350 1.2K

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 1h

Labor Dept will be the next one decimated

www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...

1 1

Reposted by KMG365

Adam Kinzinger @adamkinzinger.substack.com · 17h

Just a reminder, the layoffs in govt were just done out of spite, not necessity

670 5.9K 23K

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 2h

Considering she had, in multiple places, "this will not be my primary residence. It will be the primary residence for <niece>", her ass is covered.

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 2h

Gonna be a shitty holiday season for retailers. Mark my words.

Reposted by KMG365

Joe Morelle @morelle.house.gov · 3h

Families are facing skyrocketing health insurance premiums and an uncertain future as this shutdown drags on.

If you or someone you know has been impacted by the government shutdown, we want to hear your story:
https://morelleforms.house.gov/forms/form/?ID=61&Preview=true

3 5

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 2h

Sorry. Not supporting a guy was against Iraq before he was for it. Not supporting a guy that worked for Blackrock. Not supporting a guy calling himself a Democrat who spends his time smearing Democrats (also partly why I don't support St Bernard of No Accomplishments)

Fuck all that noise.

Reposted by KMG365

montygibbon.bsky.social @montygibbon.bsky.social · 15h

2 7

Reposted by KMG365

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 17h

Judge Perry rejects the Trump admin’s proposed definition of “unable” as basically any interference with federal law enforcement, and say that even if she did, “the factual conditions necessary for President Trump to have properly invoked Section 12406(3) simply do not exist.”

In any event, while decisions of the Ninth Circuit are "not binding" on this Court, Hays v.
United States, 397 F.3d 564, 567 (7th Cir. 2005), and the Court frankly does not agree that
"significantly impeded" is the same thing as "unable," the Court would still find that Plaintiffs
are likely to succeed on the merits even were the Ninth Circuit standard applied. As discussed,
there is evidence of protests, some of which have included acts of violence. There is also evidence of property destruction, and discrete groups who have attempted to impede DHS agents. At the same time, there is significant evidence that DHS has not been unable to carry out
its mission. All federal facilities have remained open. To the extent there have been disruptions,
they have been of limited duration and swiftly controlled by authorities. Pairing all this with
evidence that federal immigration officials have seen huge increases in arrests and deportations,
see Doc. 13 at 34-35; id. at 34 n.124, the Court concludes that even under the Ninth Circuit
standard, the factual conditions necessary for President Trump to have properly invoked Section
12406(3) simply do not exist.

1 57 300

Reposted by KMG365

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 17h

As to the second, Judge Perry examines what “unable” means, what it means to “execute the law,” and what the reference to “regular forces” means.

She concludes that it requires a situation where civil law has broken down and the military is unable to handle the situation.

Altogether then, the phrase "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States" means that in order for the President to call forth the militia to execute the laws, the President must be incapable with the regular forces-that is, lacking the power and force with the military alone—to execute the laws. This understanding of "regular forces" is not only consistent with the ordinary meaning of "regular forces" at the time Section 12406's operative
language was initially enacted, but it makes sense given the evolution of the Army over time.

Here, there has been no showing that the civil power has failed. The agitators who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested. The courts are open, and the
marshals are ready to see that any sentences of imprisonment are carried out. Resort to the
military to execute the laws is not called for.

3 29 240

Reposted by KMG365

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 17h

As to the first, Judge Perry agrees with other courts that the word “rebellion,” as understood in the era the law was passed, means something far more akin to the Civil War than small-scale unrest in a city.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, "rebellion" was understood to mean a deliberate,
organized resistance, openly and avowedly opposing the laws and authority of the government as
a whole by means of armed opposition and violence. Newsom v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 1235,
1251-53 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (collecting authorities). And should the dictionary definitions leave
any doubt, the text of subsection (2) itself requires that the rebellion be "against the authority of the Government of the United States." 10 U.S.C. § 12406(2).
This sets a very high threshold for deployment of the National Guard: As an example,
during the late 1800s, after the close of the Civil War, the Supreme Court and several statutes
referred to the Civil War as constituting a "rebellion." United States v. Anderson, 76 U.S. 56, 71
(1869) ("As Congress, in its legislation for the army, has determined that the rebellion closed on
the 20th day of August, 1866."); id. at 70 ("On the 20th day of August, 1866, the President of the
United States, after reciting certain proclamations and acts of Congress concerning the rebellion,
... did proclaim ... that the whole insurrection was at an end, and that peace, order, and tranquility
existed throughout the whole of the United States of America. This is the first official declaration
that we have, on the part of the Executive, that the rebellion was wholly suppressed[.J"); Act of
March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 432 (approving in all respects President's proclamations as to those
"charged with participation in the late rebellion against the United States").

Are we, then, in danger of something akin to another Civil War? The President would be
entitled to great deference on the question of whether that state of affairs exists. But it does not
appear as though President Trump has made that conclusion. The June 7, 2025 memorandum
issued by President Trump states that "[t]o the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the
Government of the United States." Doc. 62-1 at 19. This is a legal conclusion, not a factual one.
And in all of the memoranda actually deploying the National Guard to Illinois, the Court does
not see any factual determination by President Trump regarding a rebellion brewing here. Rather,
those memoranda refer specifically to difficulty executing the laws, indicating that Section
12406(3), not 12406(2) provided the basis for the deployment of the National Guard.
This is sensible, because the Court cannot find reasonable support for a conclusion that
there exists in Illinois a danger of rebellion satisfying the demands of Section 12406(2). The
unrest Defendants complain of has consisted entirely of opposition (indeed, sometimes violent)
to a particular federal agency and the laws it is charged with enforcing. That is not opposition to
the authority of the federal government as a whole. Defendants have offered no explanation
supporting the notion that widespread opposition to immigration enforcement constitutes the
makings of a broader opposition to the authority of the federal government.

3 46 240

Reposted by KMG365

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 17h

The Trump admin says Trump is authorized to deploy the Texas National Guard to Chicago under the specific law below. They say there is:

- (2) a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of US
- (3) the President is “unable with regular forces to execute the laws.”

The Origins of 10 U.S.C. § 12406
The final piece of our historical puzzle is 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which Defendants represent
supplies the authority for the deployment of federalized National Guard troops into Illinois. In its
current incarnation, it provides:
Whenever
(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or
(3) the President is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States;
the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute those laws.
10 U.S.C. § 12406.

3 28 160

Reposted by KMG365

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 17h

Judge Perry spends four pages going over the history of the debates around the Constitution as to the proper relationship of the President to a state militia, especially after overthrowing the British, who had maintained standing armies in the colonies against their wishes.

A. The Constitution
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, one topic of hot debate among the
Founders was how to properly scope the federal government's military powers. Indeed, among
the grievances directed against King George Ill by signatories to the Declaration of
Independence was his keeping in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures." Decl. of Independence para. 13 (U.S. 1776). Thus, while the Founders recognized that well-trained soldiers were necessary "for providing for the common defense" of our young nation, they were concerned "that a national standing Army posed an intolerable threat to
individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate states." Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496
U.S. 334, 340 (1990); see also Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 23-24 (1957) ("The Founders
envisioned the army as a necessary institution, but one dangerous to liberty if not confined within its essential bounds."). Further informing some Founders' suspicion of standing armies was the
fact that local militias of individual states had played a vital role in securing the recent victory in
the Revolutionary War. See Frederick Bemays Wiener, The Militia Clause of the Constitution,
54 Harv. L. Rev. 181, 182-83 (1940).
Another concern among some Founders was the extent of the federal government's
powers to deploy federal military forces-including federalized militia-for purposes of general
law enforcement. For instance, in response to a proposal to add language to the Constitution
which would empower the federal government to "call forth the force of the Union" against states that passed laws contravening those of the union, James Madison moved successfully for its removal, opining that such use of force against a state "would look more like a declaration of
war, than an infliction of punishment." Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces
in Domestic Disorders 1789-1879 8 (citing Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal
Convention,…

come within the idea of an insurrection." Id. at 410. To this, Madison replied that "there might be
riots, to oppose the execution of the laws, which the civil power might not be sufficient to quell."
Id. (emphasis added). Patrick Henry pressed the issue, charging that granting power of "calling
the militia to enforce every execution indiscriminately" would be "unprecedented," and a
"genius of despotism." Id. at 412. To this, Madison noted the "great deal of difference between
calling forth the militia, when a combination is formed to prevent the execution of the laws, and
the sheriff or constable carrying with him a body of militia to execute them in the first instance;
which is a construction not warranted by the [Militia] clause." Id. at 415.
Confronted with such concerns, even federalist proponent Alexander Hamilton rejected
the notion that the militia could enforce domestic law, opining that given "the supposition of a
want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of colour, it
will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia is as uncandid as it is illogical." The Federalist No. 29,
at 188 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob Ernest Cooke, ed., 1961). To Hamilton, then, it was nothing
more than an "exaggerated and improbable suggestion]" that the federal government would
command one state's militia to march offensively into the territories of another, given how
assuredly such conduct would invite "detestation" and "universal hatred" by the people of the
would-be usurper. Id. at 186-87.
On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Many of the concerns debated
by the Founders reflect in its contours. Regarding the militia, the Founders chose to vest
Congress-not the President—with constitutional power "to provide for calling forth the Militia
to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," U.S. Const. a…

disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service
of the United States." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 16. The President, then, would be the
"Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." U.S. Const. art. 2, § 2,
cl. 1.
That the Framers understood the Calling Forth Clause narrowly can be seen in
Congress's earliest efforts to put the clause into legislative practice. In 1792, Congress enacted
an Act to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
insurrections and repel invasions." Act of May 2, 1792, 1 Stat. 264(1792). In 1795, Congress
repealed the 1792 Act and passed an amended version. Act of February 28, 1795, 1 Stat. 424
(1795). In both versions, Congress authorized the President to call upon the militia in response to
invasion or insurrection without much limitation. But for the President to call forth the militia in
cases where "the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof
obstructed," stricter controls were imposed. Id. Specifically, Congress authorized the calling
forth of militia only when the forces of obstruction were "too powerful to be suppressed by the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals" by the Act. Id.
These early efforts demonstrate contemporaneous understanding that military deployment for
purpose of executing the laws was to be an act of last resort, only after other systems had failed.
Beyond the Calling Forth Clause, other Constitutional provisions respond to Founders'
concerns about specters of military overreach. For instance, the Founders chose not to
consolidate control over the nation's standing army and naval forces into a single branch of
federal government. Power to command was vested in the President, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1,
but power to actually "declare War…

Navy" entrusted to Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 11-13; see also The Federalist No. 24,
at 153 (Alexander Hamilton) (Jacob Ernest Cooke, ed., 1961) (noting "the whole power of
raising armies was lodged in the legislature, not in the executive") (emphasis in original).
Moreover, two of the Constitution's first ten Amendments articulate safeguards against the
military: the Second Amendment-with its assurance that well-regulated militias would be
prepared and armed to fight for the security of the states-and the Third Amendment, with its
prohibition on quartering of soldiers in times of peace.
Finally, the Constitution and its early amendments also reflect another long-standing
American principle: that the states possess a "residuary and inviolable dual sovereignty." The
Federalist No. 39, at 256 (James Madison) (Jacob Ernest Cooke, ed., 1961); see also Printz v.
United States, 521 U.S. 898, 918 (1997) ("It is incontestible that the Constitution established a
system of 'dual sovereignty"'); Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 294 (1936) (the
Framers "meant to carve from the general mass of legislative powers, then possessed by the
states, only such portions as it was thought wise to confer upon the federal government"). This
conception is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, but particularly in the Tenth
Amendment, which states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people." U.S. Const. amend. X. These reserved and residuary powers include, among other
things, "the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States." United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S 598, 618 (2000); see also Patterson v. State of Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501, 503 (1878) (the "power to establish the ordinary regulations of police has been left with the individual States, and cannot be assumed by the national government");
Carte…

6 89 360

Reposted by KMG365

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 17h

UPDATE: Judge Perry issued an opinion explaining why she blocked the Texas National Guard deployment in Chicago.

She begins with Alexander Hamilton’s rejection of a “preposterous” idea that the Constitution lets a President deploy a State’s militia to a different State for political retribution. 🧵

OPINION AND ORDER
Since this country was founded, Americans have disagreed about the appropriate division
of power between the federal government and the fifty states that make up our Union. This
tension is a natural result of the system of federalism adopted by our Founders. And yet, not even
the Founding Father most ardently in favor of a strong federal government believed that one
state's militia could be sent to another state for the purposes of political retribution, calling such
a suggestion "inflammatory," and stating "it is impossible to believe that [a President] would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs." But Plaintiffs contend that such
an event has come to pass, and argue that National Guard troops from both Illinois and Texas
have been deployed to Illinois because the President of the United States wants to punish state elected officials whose policies are different from his own.

28 850 2.6K

Reposted by KMG365

Chuck Schumer @schumer.senate.gov · 1d

Someone like JD Vance, who has been on the receiving end of a lot of insinuations, should know to couch his language more carefully.

Anyways, I’ll be here, ready to make a deal to save Americans’ health care and reopen the federal government that Republicans shut down.

A headline from the New York Post reads: “JD Vance calls Chuck Schumer ‘one of the most famous Palestinians’”

85 120 570

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 5h

I have dollars I'll be sending her.

1

Reposted by KMG365

Tony Moonbeam II @moonbeamii.bsky.social · 12h

PICTURED: Two 70+ year old politicians who have never lost a statewide primary

4 16

Reposted by KMG365

Oversight Dems @oversightdemocrats.house.gov · 23h

TO ALL FEDERAL WORKERS: if you were illegally fired today and have information of wrongdoing or abuse of power by the Trump Administration, our whistleblower tip line is open.

We want to hear from you. All whistleblowers are federally protected.

Report Potential Wrongdoing Under the Trump Administration

Whistleblowers play a vital role in helping Congress conduct our constitutionally mandated oversight responsibilities. If you have knowledge of corporate or government corruption and abuses of power; insights into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates; or information regarding potential wrongdoing or waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars, your disclosure can make a difference.

oversightdemocrats.house.gov

15 430 700

Reposted by KMG365

Chris Sams @jerijerod14.bsky.social · 10h

People asked and I listened (eventually) so here is the first post on ABDACOM’s fleet during the spring of 1942 and their attempts to stop the Japanese Navy’s conquest of Java and Indonesia.

jerijerod14.substack.com/p/chaos-in-t...

Chaos in the Pacific

Early actions of ABDACOM's fleet in early 1942

jerijerod14.substack.com

1 7 26

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 8h

Wait, the dude that wants credit for Operation Warpspeed, who said COVID vaccines are bad, got a COVID vax booster shot?

MAGAts are gonna be so mad at Trump

Reposted by KMG365

Charles Ghoul-ba ✡️ @charlesgaba.com · 1d

The reason people THINK employer coverage is significantly less expensive than ACA coverage is because around 75% of the premium cost is typically PAID BY THE EMPLOYER.

ACA tax credits effectively take the place of the employer's share of ESI premiums.

KFF.org: Avg. annual worker & employer premium contributions

6 34 97

Reposted by KMG365

Joe Morelle @morelle.house.gov · 21h

Day 10 of the Republican shutdown and we've made no progress on the healthcare crisis they created.

American families are struggling with costs, they need support where it matters most.

6 11

KMG365 @starbucksgirl51.bsky.social · 17h

Survey from a WI news site

1