politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Any guardsmen that would actually go to TX and support TX would be unlikely to follow the stand down order. I’m kind of curious how many would just follow orders going both directions.
It's probably not as clear-cut as your making it out to be. These would be actually armed forces personnel, subject to all of the rules, regulations, chain of command, disciplinary consequences, etc. that come with that.
Yes, they could possibly make an argument that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders, but not a totally clear-cut, black-and-white one, they'd likely still be looking at arrest, courts-martial, etc. if they straight-up refuse to deploy to Texas. They're people with lives, family, regular jobs, etc. that would very likely have to get put on hold while everything gets sorted out and they may not necessarily come out on top. Depending on the exact context, it's probably going to be hard to make an argument that simply going to Texas would be an illegal order.
So if it happens, you can probably expect damn-near every guardsman from those states to go to Texas if they're ordered to.
What they're ordered to do once they're there is probably where they'd have a stronger case, but even still they'd have to carefully thread that needle if they want to avoid prison, dishonorable discharge, etc. There's a lot they could be ordered to do that would be very objectionable but not quite meet the legal bar of being an illegal order that they'd be obligated to disobey.
They can't exactly say no to going to TX, can they? It's not going to be all soldiers who support the idea.
They can't say no to the general order to deploy. But the second they're nationalized they have cover to follow the federal orders and ignore illegal orders from the governor.