{"id":636,"date":"2025-06-10T21:08:45","date_gmt":"2025-06-10T21:08:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sewellconsultancy.com\/?p=636"},"modified":"2025-06-16T03:07:25","modified_gmt":"2025-06-16T03:07:25","slug":"the-national-guard-deployment-in-la-is-a-threat-to-democracy-opinion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sewellconsultancy.com\/index.php\/2025\/06\/10\/the-national-guard-deployment-in-la-is-a-threat-to-democracy-opinion\/","title":{"rendered":"The National Guard deployment in LA is a threat to democracy (Opinion)"},"content":{"rendered":"

President Donald Trump\u2019s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, over the objection of California Governor Gavin Newsom, represents a structural threat to democracy. The law on which Trump relied permits domestic deployment only in cases of invasion by a foreign nation, rebellion, or danger of a rebellion.<\/p>\n

Newsom said he intends to sue the Trump administration over the president\u2019s action.<\/p>\n

The reasons for the legal limitation go to the heart of constitutional government. In a democracy — as opposed to a dictatorship \u2014 the military should not be used to police citizens unless civilian law enforcement cannot or will not do its job.<\/p>\n

And if the president can single out protests against his policies<\/a> and deploy the National Guard specifically to suppress them, it endangers the constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly.<\/p>\n

At stake is a fundamental component of the framework of U.S. constitutional democracy. It begins with the principle, enshrined in law, that military forces exist to protect the country from existential threats — such as an invasion or rebellion \u2014 not to enforce the law.<\/p>\n

Most fundamentally, the founders of the American republic understood very clearly that concentrated military power, loyal to a single man, could be used to achieve total control by that person. And they had a historical example in mind: Rome — a republic governed by the people and the Senate \u2014 was transformed into an empire ruled by an emperor as a result of the Roman army being turned against its citizens.<\/p>\n

The Founders\u2019 initial solution to the concentration of military power was federalism and decentralization. State militias — acknowledged and recognized in the Second Amendment (which was about keeping those militias vital, not establishing individual gun rights) \u2014 were a check on the central authority of a president who was also commander in chief.<\/p>\n

Today, the National Guard\u2019s status as a force responsible both to governors and the president still reflects that goal of decentralization-to-protect-democracy. A governor can call out the troops to enforce the law when it\u2019s necessary. The governor is the state\u2019s chief law enforcement officer, closer to its residents and any situation that arises. Such a gubernatorial order typically signals that the need for the National Guard is real, not invented.<\/p>\n

The only circumstances that justify the president deploying the National Guard are an actual invasion or a rebellion \u2013 either existing or genuinely threatened. There\u2019s no invasion, Trump\u2019s claims about a Venezuelan gang notwithstanding. And there\u2019s no rebellion or threat of one. What there are, rather, are protests — some reportedly peaceful, others reportedly violent and therefore in need of control.<\/p>\n

When President John F. Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to desegregate the state\u2019s schools in 1963, it was because Governor George Wallace had, on that day, stood in front of a door at the University of Alabama to keep two Black students from enrolling and declared, \u201cSegregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was an overt, direct rejection of the authority of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, and it came with a refusal to desegregate schools despite court orders. It was as close to rebellion as the U.S. has come in the modern era, and it specifically reflected the Southern tradition of rebellion dating back to secession and the Confederacy.<\/p>\n

The same was true on March 20, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect a civil rights march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery. He did so — over the objections of Wallace \u2014 after state troopers earlier that month beat and fired on marchers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, killing a Black man.<\/p>\n

The recent events in Los Angeles bear no resemblance to Wallace and Alabama\u2019s rejection of federal law and authority. California isn\u2019t against the federal government or the Constitution. It\u2019s trying to end violent protests and allow peaceful demonstrations to continue.<\/p>\n