• stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Not sure why the commander in chief can’t just order them removed and let Texas deal with the US military if they don’t like it.

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Those buoys are deployed by the Texas National Guard who answer to the governor of the state of Texas and is property of the state.

      The commander in chief could hypothetically commandeer their property and dispose it but requires a lot of legal hurdles and time to write warning orders, operational orders and fragmentary orders to deploy the US military to get it done.

      It’s cheaper and easier to get the SCOTUS to order it illegal and force them to do it themselves with their own state money instead of federal money. Rather than burdening US taxpayers, lets burden Texan taxpayers to fix the problem they themselves created.

      Your neighbor parked his pickup truck in your driveway to deliberately block you in and said he can’t move it because it’s broken down. Are you going to pay for a tow truck to haul it away or make him pay for it?

          • dreadgoat@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh no, one of our states is unilaterally performing acts of war, but pOSsE cOmITatUS, guess our hands are tied, aw shucks

            • Methylman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Your right, but OP was incorrect in using the word policing when the Act passed by congress actually uses the words “domestic” law enforcement; (imo) arguably this includes any action that stems from edit: ACTING enforcing laws on domestic, as opposed to foreign, soil. Further the exceptions allow for military to “provide” resources that support domestic enforcement officer which (again imo) would not extend to ‘not providing/actually removing’ resources that domestic enforcement officers do already have…

              All that to say what the act does do is create a grey area that can be argued either way and which does force the federal government to have to think twice about using the military for such matters… for better or for worse

              Edit for clarity