Legal ≠ moral. Both instances of mobilizing the national guard against the wishes of the states’ governors were illegal, but one was moral and the other is not. One could argue that by breaking the law the first time a precedent was set that allowed it to be done again for a less noble cause, but I disagree. The fact that it was possible for Eisenhower to federalize the national guard without the state governor’s approval in the first place means that nothing would stop it from happening in the future regardless of whether or not a precedent was set.
Legal ≠ moral. Both instances of mobilizing the national guard against the wishes of the states’ governors were illegal, but one was moral and the other is not. One could argue that by breaking the law the first time a precedent was set that allowed it to be done again for a less noble cause, but I disagree. The fact that it was possible for Eisenhower to federalize the national guard without the state governor’s approval in the first place means that nothing would stop it from happening in the future regardless of whether or not a precedent was set.
What?
It went to the SC, it was/is legal.
You have your opinion on if it should be legal, and are treating that like it’s the actual legal reality.
That is absolutely not how America’s legal system works. And these aren’t the only two examples.
This same precedent came up in 2020 about vaccine mandates. If you hadn’t heard about this before last weekend, that’s fine…
Just don’t insist you’re an expert immediately. Some people paid attention