Portland: Donald Trump is allowed to send National Guard to Oregon

Portland: Donald Trump is allowed to send National Guard to Oregon

Court of Appeal decides
Trump is allowed to send the National Guard to Portland








It is a legal success for Donald Trump: The National Guard is allowed to move into Portland for the time being. But are there actually “war-like conditions” there?

US President Donald Trump has achieved a legal victory in a legal dispute over the deployment of the National Guard. A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Trump could send the troops to Portland despite opposition from the city government and the state of Oregon. The court thereby suspended the order of a judge who had initially blocked the deployment and classified Trump’s actions as presumably illegal. Federal Judge Karin J. Immergut ruled that there was neither an “insurrection in Portland nor a threat to national security.” The appeals court overturned the federal judge’s decisions by a majority of two of the three judges.



Trump has already deployed National Guard troops to the cities of Los Angeles, Washington and Memphis, which are also run by Democrats. He has also announced a deployment to Chicago. He justified the deployment to Portland with protests against his immigration policy and described the city in the northwest of the USA as “ravaged by war”.

California

Trump threatens to send the National Guard to San Francisco


Donald Trump wants to send the National Guard – the situation in Portland is anything but a “state of war”

Whether this applies to Portland seems at least questionable. However, according to police records, the protests in mid-June were “small and quiet.” Accordingly, there were 25 arrests at the time, and no more since June 19th.

The National Guard serves as the militia of the respective states and reports to the governors unless the president calls them into service with the federal government. Several Democratic-led states and cities have sued over the deployments, arguing that Trump’s actions violate the Constitution and states’ rights. To date, the federal appeals courts have ruled inconsistently on this matter.

AFP · Reuters

be

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts