Donald Trump threatens to impose martial law in Chicago,

[workinclasszero]

Donald Trump threatens to impose martial law in Chicago, and it may be over a feud with Rahm Emanuel
President Trump's feud with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel could have big, big consequences
Wednesday, Jan 25, 2017 06:45 AM CST Matthew Rozsa

President Donald Trump is threatening Chicago and its mayor, Rahm Emanuel, with martial law, something which could have profound implications for the Windy City.

On Tuesday morning, Trump sent out the following tweet, threatening to “send in the feds” in response to Chicago’s violence

If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-threatens-to-impose-martial-law-in-chicago-and-it-may-be-over-a-feud-with-rahm-emanuel/

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Oh my god

This is really America now?

[workinclasszero]

2. Baghdad Sean and the Ministry of Truth

can answer all your questions citizen, Hail Dumpf!

[onetexan]

3. Is that even legal?

[meow2u3]

4. Do you think Cheato Benito CARES if it's legal?

Do you think reTHUGS care if it's legal? The GOP is running a massive CRIME WAVE which has gone unabated for decades.

[bathroommonkey76]

8. Bush did it after Katrina hit

From Mobile to New Orleans-- Checkpoints were everywhere with soldiers in Humvees holding AK-47s.-- I witnessed this while I was working there for a company out of Ohio.

[jmg257]

10. Yep...seems so...

Article IV, Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

"This protection is for the people. The U. S. Supreme Court so held in Texas v. White (1868), saying it's the people who are guaranteed this protection."
http://www.domesticviolenceclause.org/

US Code does away with the need for the state to ask:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if...

[Renew Deal]

5. I don't think the headline is technically true

He could well mean federal agents, not the army. Emanuel assumed the same thing.

[jmg257]

6. He better talk to the Governor 1st

10 U.S. Code § 333 - Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

[MineralMan]

7. If 'the Feds' means the FBI,

then no, it wouldn't be martial law. Martial law requires the use of the military, by definition. Trump didn't suggest the military. "The Feds" usually refers to federal law enforcement personnel.

The writer isn't clear on the definition of martial law, I think.

[Blue_Tires]

9. This is all about scapegoating a city full of Dems and minorities...

Nothing more...