Troops Deployed Under Posse Comitatus and The Insurrection Act? (LegalEagle’s Law Review)

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
The military and national guard are being deployed. Is it a violation of Posse Comitatus?
Call your lawyer using Ting Mobile and get a $25 credit! legaleagle.ting.com
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
legaleagle.teachable.com/p/pr...
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
www.copyrightcourse.com/yt
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
🕵️♂️My Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
👔My Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
📎My Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
🔲My Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
💈My Hair Product amzn.to/2Ui2aQx
📸My Video Camera Setup www.amazon.com/shop/legaleagle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have a suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

⚖️Should the federal military be activated? ☎️ Get $25 off of you first month with Ting Mobile legaleagle.ting.com

[@raawesome3851]

You are first. But in all seriousness, no. I don't think so. Our military is meant to protect the people, not kill them for using their rights.

[@rosco4766]

@@raawesome3851 lmao

[@steven7936]

Thank you for doing your part

[@dannysmith8035]

thx for making these vids as a person living in the uk it is confusing about any abuse of power in america and how trump gets away with things he does?

[@raawesome3851]

@@rosco4766 what's so funny?

[@IbeCosmic]

Dude is working himself ragged to try and keep up with the insanity recently, and we appreciate your efforts Devin.

[@uss_04]

James Bremner Just need to market a line of cases to carry around those spare suits.

[@jaiparwani4279]

@LegalEagle Objection: do people have a right to peacefully assemble during a pandemic

[@jpe1]

Doubting Rich I would love so see some of the real lawyers pointing out his mistakes and biases. What channels? Do you have links?

[@nhagan001]

Yeah... Doubting Rich, I’m gonna need links and names of lawyers that are saying this. Preferably non-Faux news lawyers.

[@NoHandle44]

His name's Devin?

[@swoop8047]

Darkest segue I've ever heard. "If you got unlawfully arrested for exercising your first amendment rights, why not use Bing to call your lawyer?" - Wow 2020, just wow.

[@anna-flora999]

I find it nice that he himself noticed how bad it is to do that

[@Reydriel]

@@justinconnelly5011 Protestors and looting are different activities done by different people. Looters aren't the ones being shot at with rubber bullets and tear gassed; looters take shit and run away, they don't stick around.

[@jeuce111]

@@justinconnelly5011 The thing is not everyone that is protesting are looting or burning down building, it is just opportunists that are taking advantage of this situation to be A**holes basically, but we cannot let those people make us loose focus from the injustice that has been going on in this country. We are not Democrats or Republicans this issue affects us all as American citizens!

[@grmpEqweer]

@@jeuce111 Well said.

[@jeuce111]

@@grmpEqweer Thank you I just think that people try to focus to much on political parties but do not understand that we are American first and foremost and we have to stick together or else the government will just walk all over us and take our rights away.

[@jakepullman4914]

Sobering when LegalEagle reminds us that no, the law is not inherently on the side of doing the "right" thing, it's a tool that can be used or abused.

[@docan5248]

Joey Weisen One can interpret the law in a way that purposefully engenders, promotes, and permits abuse.

[@ultra3068]

Abused by mayors to let millennials create an autonomous zone to murder people.

[@chicpotpie3494]

They set the church basement on fire prior to the bumbling photo op.

[@Drood.]

When it's been legal in the past to own slaves or illegal to vote because of your race or gender, or illegal to live because of your sexuality I simply can't understand why anyone would think the law has anything to do with being right.

[@dennisanderson8663]

That is why I love the movie Star Chamber because the murderers that got off on technicalities get hitmen sent to dispatch them with extreme prejudice for manipulating the justice system.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:40 - Chapter 1 - The posse comitatus act 3:15 - Chapter 2 - The insurrection act of 1807 8:00 - Chapter 3 - When has the act being used ? 10:50 - Chapter 4 - Norms vs laws 18:20 - End roll ads

[@Therealbubbyaa]

"So it's not clear how long he's going to be the Secretary of Defense" that just made me laugh

[@NotHPotter]

💯

[@KonolaChopin]

It's funny, depressing, and horrifying because it's true.

[@edoardoprevelato6577]

@@KonolaChopin i can picture Trump asking himself "wait, can i become secretary of everything while still being prez?"

[@KonolaChopin]

@@edoardoprevelato6577 in all honesty he would just give it to Jared Kushner.

[@pgtmr2713]

It's clearly going to be 4 more years. But, that was very funny Edoardo.

[@vm141789]

If nothing else, 2020 is giving LegalEagle plenty of material to work with.

[@martinklingenberg637]

We have a saying for that in Norwegian. Roughly translated. Nothing is so bad that is does not do anything good. (Sounds better in Norwegian)

[@davidsjostein9963]

Martin Klingenberg we have that too🇫🇴

[@vm141789]

@@martinklingenberg637 I like that. I'm gonna remember it.

[@jaiparwani4279]

@@martinklingenberg637 yeah it's a good day for George flyod

[@EM-vw7im]

@@jaiparwani4279 Are you purposefully misunderstanding? The saying means just finding the silver lining. Very few bad things are fully all bad with all bad consequences. Like without Floyd's death none of this police reform was never even gonna be talked about, orcwithout covid some people would never spend time with family. Silver lining. And there are other examples.

[@annawildsville]

"Bumbling example of a pretext". Absolutely brilliant!

[@SubvertTheState]

I was in the National Guard for 8 years, deployed to Iraq in 2008 and the only deployment that filled me with dread and fear... was being deployed domestically, in fact there were several of us who secretly discussed not showing up. I'm thankful I never had to. Edit: ofcourse with the exclusion of natural disasters, that's basically the definition of National Guard. I just couldn't imagine being asked to control or break up protests.

[@solopine9624]

I am amazed by the unlimited suit and tie combinations this guy has

[@curtist919]

Indochino

[@robertli3600]

U forgot to whisper it

[@thehumanconsensus]

*hushed whisper* Indochino

[@clocked0]

quiet whisper only Cthulhu can hear: *indochinoooooooo*

[@Jessie_Helms]

He’s a lawyer, he gotta stay sharp.

[@Enigmaessence]

"So it's not clear how long he's going to be the Secretary of Defense," it's so sad because it's so true.

[@caesarmedina8489]

Trump called him into this office and he flipped his tone REAL quick.

[@ariez84]

"So it's not clear how long he's going to be the Secretary of Defense," unlike the calls on Ting where its crystal clear.

[@KEvronista]

@@ariez84 lol! that's some cheese! KEvron

[@dog61]

Has Trump said he has "full confidence" in Esper yet?

[@moriellymoproblems7842]

@@dog61 That's like the equivalent of "You are my number 1 guy" in Batman 1989.

[@flubohooligan]

So if there already was a "T-Mobile", and you're selling "Ting Mobile", could I create a service called "AT&Ting Mobile" that operates in the same market?

[@turbosippycup]

Probably.

[@ceresbane]

@@turbosippycup But a suit would be sent over simply to waste your time in resources in court fees and disable that budding business (yeah, ain't it neat how big companies can win even if they fight an unwinnable battle).

[@superstorm2444]

this might not be of the same tone as the video, but I've always imagined that Mr. Legal Eagle is swinging his legs through his videos. Makes me giggle every time. Hope it makes someone else's day better. :)

[@alexandertownsend3291]

It did

[@qatonfire7476]

This made me very happy

[@the20thDoctor]

The ad plug at the end gave me whiplash. I'm calling my lawyer.

[@irri3191]

Me too and I'm going to use T-Mobile. 🤗

[@greenyawgmoth]

Lionel Hutz is on his way!

[@warlordofvideogameglitches]

Well you can learn about law by using skillshare and defend yourself.

[@joeysingingchannel]

@@greenyawgmoth No! Money down!

[@ussfury13]

“There is a reason why you separate military and the police. One fights the enemy of the state the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.” -William Adama Commander Battlestar Galactica

[@NightWarp]

SO SAY WE ALL

[@TheMaryam1891]

Wow Trump thinks he invented that.

[@joeywest386]

in this case... the 'people' became the enemy of the states.! when 'people' form a mob and begin rioting (vandalizing and looting in mass) then it is beyond regular police duties,.

[@blaxpoitation8528]

Rubble Maker You’re making a broad statement. You should’ve said “some people” are looting and rioting.” Which, btw we’ve seen before during and after sports events. But the military was never threatened then, was it? I think it’s overkill. The looting and rioting is messed up and wrong, but if you turn the people into “the enemy “, you’re going down a slippery slope. Time to ease up

[@arohk1579]

People who are doing a peaceful protest and having the First Amendment Rights being removed by armed soldiers could take up arms under the Second Amendment rules as well. The use of the Military should never be used unless complete and total loss of all rule has commenced. We have enacted Martial Law here in Canada in the past but not to attack peaceful protests even riot's were not ground's for that.

[@mattylite7]

12:40 This man dropping ancient Roman law analogies for the five people that know what he's talking about 😂

[@Raider8784]

Alea iacta est! Love me some Roman history.

[@kushalsb460]

In roman republic legions were forbidden to pass the Rubicon river as legionaries but only as citizens or auxiliary, but Cesear marched his troops against the senate in a historical military coup, that ultimately ended the Roman republic and started the Roman Empire. His adopted son Augustus became the first Emperor.

[@OzanBurada]

@@kushalsb460 Thing I found most important was that Roma stayed being republic legally while being an empire actually.

[@baoboumusic]

Some of us watching are European (trying to figure out what the H is happening in the land of the Freebies) and most of us know about that story ;)

[@johnnye87]

"Crossing the Rubicon" is a common expression referring to taking an unprecedented, irreversible and potentially controversial action, even if a lot of people using it aren't aware of the specific details of the historical event.

[@lmachain1]

“So it’s not clear how long he’s going to be the secretary of the defense” 😂😂😂😂😂

[@richtersundeen6105]

So the takeaway is that Posse Comitatus is one of those iconic, history textbook laws that, really, doesn't mean much in practice due to the loopholes.

[@Kahadi]

It doesn't mean much in practice because its effectively "if you're a good person, you know what you should be doing" Almost like Newcombe's paradox...

[@conniethesconnie]

My understanding of Posse Comitatus is that it had less to with ever actually placing legal restraints on the president and more with expressing the desire that Military be used in only the most dire and urgent situations.

[@blitzkrieg8776]

@@conniethesconnie So kind of like Nebraska's law involving tannerite, an explosive compound. It's technically illegal to have it, but you can get the two ingredients sold together, but if you are a dumbass with it they can charge you for possessing it. (Someone blew out all the windows in a 5 mile radius)

[@PsiQ]

@d bc - yes completely windowless Nebraska now ;-) ;-) ;-) ... all running linux now. **harr harr harr**

[@TheGalacticWest]

It is...sWiSS ChEesE

[@theodoreslavo5385]

I can see the struggle in you, telling what is legal while knowing what's legal isnt always moral.

[@r.b.rozier9692]

That is the curse of working on the legal field, realizing that some laws have nothing to do with logic or moralitt

[@r.b.rozier9692]

Morality, even

[@georgeindestructible]

Golden comment.

[@jy-op6cs]

nothing moral in the usa

[@nisher15]

What is moral isnt always right..

[@Lazarus52980]

Anyone else looking back at this during the DC situation on January 6th 2021?

[@jadedrealist]

Would love to see you do something on the "Panic" defense and why it's can still be accepted in court. If not that, something for your LGTBQ Eagles. We're out here.

[@MatthewSmith-sz1yq]

Jesus, I just looked that up, I had no idea this was a thing! It's basically saying "I dislike them too much, and therefore can't be held accountable for my actions." The worst part of it is that it still isn't banned in the US, aside from some states, and that it's been used fairly recently, and been used successfully a couple times.

[@georgebrantley776]

@@MatthewSmith-sz1yq I just wanna clarify that the panic defense rarely ever works (but that it works at all is a shame). In the recent cases where it has worked, the panic defense "only" decreased the punishment but did not acquit the defendant. By using the panic defense, the defendant practically admits guilt.

[@MatthewSmith-sz1yq]

@@georgebrantley776 yeah, unless you have that weird legal loophole where a jury thinks someone is guilty of a crime, but decides to let him off anyways. Hopefully this defense never resulted in this, but I know in the south there were several cases where the defendant even admitted to hanging a black dude, but then the jury refused to find him guilty because they didn't think he was "wrong" to do it.

[@JDarach]

Moral of the story: We shouldn't rely on norms when it comes to laws. Lay it out in detail.

[@iCloxx]

norms give presidents the necessary leeway to adapt. you can't foresee every situation when crafting a law. the moral is: do not elect someone who has no regards for norms and is clearly going to abuse his power.

[@gagetomerlin9822]

Wrong.

[@jy-op6cs]

moral of the story less goverment is a better goverment

[@archdukefranzferdinand567]

@@gagetomerlin9822 how?

[@Thundermikeee]

@@jy-op6cs not less government, but a system that works more to represent its people than gambling 4 years at a time to see how much hidden crazy there was... As my own country and place of residence i like to pull up Switzerland as an example of a decent system that works to adjust to the will of the people, even if that will is misguided at times, i still prefer it to other systems. i know its not possible for a state as big as the US to effectively copy that and it has its disadvantages but there is examples of approximations out there.

[@starkindustries26]

Can we all take a moment to appreciate how knowledgeable and honest he is? There are lawyers that use this knowledge in a selfish way and here LegalEagle is sharing his vast knowledge with us so we can better understand the law. Thank you LegalEagle, sincerely the less educated public.

[@pixality7902]

I like to think hes teaching us to be better and more knowledgeable american citizens.

[@Zack-bl2gg]

I’m sorry, but he is manipulating the facts here, making trump look like a tyrant rather than a helper. The so called “peaceful protestors”(note the air quotes) have been beating people into the hospitals, killed, looted, burned businesses, white AND black, including black cops, so if you call them peaceful I’m sorry for you. The cops have a right to gas and rubber bullet then. The cops have evacuated entire parts of cities, and hundreds of million dollars of property have been destroyed. The cops can no longer protect the people, there aren’t enough of them and too many rioters. If this is not the time to call in the military, than what is? Watch fox, or heck, even look at NBC, even they have given up on saying these are peaceful. CNN won’t even go to the ground because almost every protest goes to violence in half an hour.

[@jonathanlore2423]

Except he lied in the literal first 30 seconds of the video by saying Trump deployed the military against "peaceful protesters". A complete joke and twist of reality that is at best intellectual ignorance and at worst is intellectual dishonesty. The military was only deployed because amongst the "peaceful protesters" there began rioting, fires, theft, and vandalism of completely innocent peoples homes and businesses as well property in general, including ironically property belonging to those of African Americans, the very people these protesters are supposedly rallying for. Shame on him for spreading his political beliefs via misinformation especially to his large audience. Sincerely the less educated public indeed.

[@abbadabbafartcum]

He isn't being honest or even relaying the facts of the matter correctly at all. Signed - licensed to practice law in Canada.

[@Raytheman581]

@@Zack-bl2gg It doesn't matter, you don't use the military on your own citizens. I don't care if there were people that were being beat and killed, you let the citizens deal with that stuff, ya know like what actually happened. There were far more peaceful protest than there were riots. And the people that were rioters weren't protesters at all, they were opportunist. I know because I was there for the furgson shit that went down years ago. A member of my family was one of the dumbasses that went down there to loot and vandalize. He never wanted change. Also trump is a tyrant, you don't even joke about sending in the military on your own people.

[@bunniesbunniesbunnie]

literally everyone soft clapping at that segue into the advertisement

[@MineMiguel40]

my goodness this has deteriorated into chaos so quickly

[@liammacanus7532]

I love that he acknowledges how he plugged Ting was a little messed up hahah!

[@mrsuperguy2073]

that moment where he lost it for a second.... on point

[@darthfastball1150]

Sometimes you have to do what you have to do to keep afloat. Especially when it’s important you can produce vital content during a pandemic and a civil rights catastrophe on the federal level. But yah it is kinda weird

[@mustang8206]

He can't have a show without funding

[@peterpain6625]

When you cringe on your own segue ;) Loved it.

[@johans3164]

he need the support. all of us would do the same. at least he make it entertaining by being self aware

[@BR4IN1N4J4R]

So part that needs to be highlighted is that soldiers are legally obligated to refuse any order that is not lawful. So if say a soldier is ordered by his commanding officer to shoot non-lethal munitions at non-violent protesters is legally obligated to tell said officer "no" under UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). I'd recommend an in-depth dive into UCMJ to show civilians that the Military has rules in addition to local, state, and national laws. Source: Served almost eight years in the Army National Guard across two separate states (Indiana and New Jersey)

[@JoshSweetvale]

And do you really think the majority of your former peers wouldn't act first and think later?

[@anna-flora999]

The problem is that it might not be unlawful

[@Person01234]

Yes but those laws don't mean anything if they don't choose to follow them. They're the ones with the guns.

[@gagetomerlin9822]

Whose to say the soliders would say no?

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Ah, yes... I would say the same to the so called Governors, but hay, corruption smiles.

[@SirGalahad83]

"A police force that is trained to serve and protect." It seems "trained" is interpreted very broadly. Police that acts as judge and hangman at the same time don't seem very "trained" to me.

[@nfzeta128]

A lot of training is also more on establishing 'control' than any serve and protect ideal.

[@richardchantlerrico]

I was thinking the same thing, "A military that is trained to kill, and a police force that is trained to kill" would be more accurate it seems considering how often it occurs.

[@sorayaimperial]

How long is the average police officer trained for in the US? Over here in Portugal, a cop usually trained for a year then an internship. A chief needs at least 10 years experience and then another year course. And a higher officer goes to Police Academy for five years to get a degree in Police Science and then each promotion includes several months of training. In contrast, you average army joe trains for 7 weeks plus 5weeks to 6 months of a specialty. Sargents train for 12 weeks plus 3 to 9 months of specialty. And an Officer either trains for six years plus a one year internship or the same as a Sargent if they are what we call Contract Officers (think a Lawyer who wants to become a Military Lawyer, or a PE teacher hired just for military fitness). That means that the lowest soldier can be "ready" to kill in less than three months, but a cop/guard never less than a full year. And still our cops do have close ties to extreme right-wing, but at least they are not trigger happy.

[@LastStar007]

You think "trained" is broad, wait till you see "serve and protect". Heien v. North Carolina--cops do not need to know the law. Gonzalez v. Castle Rock--cops do not need to enforce the law. Warren v. DC--cops can twiddle their thumbs while you get raped for 14 hours, no matter how many times you call it in.

[@ZohmBe]

What you interpreted wrong was the "serve and protect". Because they are not there to serve and protect you, they are there to serve and protect the laws. They do not care about you.

[@foulweatherworks7831]

your set lighting and recording is excellent, amongst the general awesome history and info in your videos, thank you!

[@jacobford3452]

A lesson we can learn from this is that, in the future, let's write laws and acts assuming the most malevalent and crafty person will try and work around it. TL;DR: We need to write laws assuming everyone is a genie.

[@spidaxtreme]

What would that look like?

[@lostbutfreesoul]

Not feasible. To ensure we haven't given that 'genie' an easy way out of any charges, every possible interpretation of the law will need to be written down. Every single word within would need to be very clearly defined, and those definitions would likely need definitions, or else lawyers will have a field day. They already try arguments dissecting the meaning of a single word, but image a system where such would be grounds for immediate dismissal of the case, instead of something an appeal court would review. I think allowing Judges to decide these things, with appeal acting as oversight, is probably the best we can hope for. At least, until we figure out how to put the whole justice system in the hands of an A.I. capable of beating a genie!

[@prestonhall5171]

We need to write laws that outline what should be done but also what shouldn't be done.

[@adamf663]

And perhaps improve america's education system so people aren't so easily hoodwinked by a conman and a psychotic imbecile.

[@vetreas366]

@@adamf663 Well that would be the easy way out and who likes taking the easy way out? Losers! And... smart people but... I forget my point...

[@pdthorn]

Point of fact: “the distinction between norms and laws” could be uniformly applied to every facet of the current administration.

[@iCloxx]

Trump 2024 - exhibit the destinction between norms and laws again! might not roll off the tongue as well but it is painfully accurate.

[@uss_04]

“Rule by Fiat” is one

[@springbloom5940]

The 'norms' are exactly what got Trump elected.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

Fool... That was here long before Trump is here now.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@@iCloxx Trump was not the first, but hay, do you want an enemy you do not know? I wonder.

[@diggity_dunker]

I am loving your videos about the protests! Your video about Lafayette Park was so moving. Thank you for using your platform

[@robertericks]

Thank you for doing these videos. I have a Master of Jurisprudence (Energy Law), which I haven't used in a few years. Your videos help me stay in touch with my legal education.

[@toryizquierdo35]

his saltiness during the paid promotion is absurdly refreshing

[@ArtAttackTV]

Can we all just take a second to remember that this man is still a practicing lawyer, yet still makes it's a point to research for his videos and willing to bet, write the script he needs to do these videos, then work with the editor to make sure the video is of consistent quality. Legal Eagle is a boss! Keep doing you dude!

[@dr.floridamanphd]

Lawyers don’t know every aspect of every law. They’re knowledgeable about the field they specialize in, but they don’t know every law.

[@merleperiwinkle7642]

@@dr.floridamanphd They sure as hell know how it works though and are able to teach themselves better than the average person about any other law.

[@dr.floridamanphd]

Merle Periwinkle, I know how the law works too and I’ve never been to college. But I can read statutes and court rulings. Law isn’t nearly as complicated as they want you to believe.

[@jakeleach1997]

@@dr.floridamanphd that's a ridiculous statement, the law is incredibly complex and incredibly intricate. Anyone can read a statute, but knowing how to apply it, knowing what precedents apply, knowing the mens rea and actus rea that make up the burden of proof etc is far more complex than you are giving credit for. There is a reason training to be a lawyer takes so long, I guess next you'll claim being a doctor isn't that hard?

[@CplBaker]

@@dr.floridamanphd you're the problem we have in society where people make that huge leap (due to Narcissistic tendencies probably) because they can understand a few things that they know more than the professionals. That's why we have idiots running around without masks protesting for haircuts in states like Florida... oh.. now it makes sense.

[@goodstormsgames9744]

When you see some one trying to suppress their anger disgust. And discuss things clearly. This man is impressive.....can the people impromptu vote to remove donald trump from office?

[@stephenwright8824]

Unfortunately no. The Founding Fathers didn't think a mutated subhuman moron like Trump would ever get into the White House, so they made no provision for removal of the President beside the conventional one, impeachment. Which, thanks to the cowardice and tunnel vision of a few dozen other subhumans, failed to do so.

[@CactusJackIV]

You're the reason I wanted to go into law(only got the History BA) Wasn't sure I could get into Law School or pass the bar. THere is just so much information, and history in law. Keep up the great work.

[@FloorFerret]

Yet another law that sounds super strict and then you realize it's got so many.loopholes it is basically non-existent

[@captainplaceholder4482]

Whenever these are passed, someone always objects and the argument " Well the president would never abuse this right " but what about the next guy? or the guy after him? or the guy after that. You aren't just giving the current president the power, you are giving them all it. It was asked if Obama had the right to crush a little boys testicles and the response was " It would depend why the president felt he needed to " and that isn't a no.

[@Kahadi]

Yeah, its quite clearly a law that's more "if you're a good person, you know what to do"

[@castonyoung7514]

@@captainplaceholder4482 That's how it should work. Presidents need power. I'm not sure if there is a possible way to do it otherwise. The system has already failed absolutely when someone like Trump is elected into office. Furthermore, if any position in government becomes fool proof, I have to ask what's the point of the position? It seems that preexisting law already has everything covered.

[@davidanderson_surrey_bc]

So many loopholes it's not a law, it's a crochet.

[@encryptlakegames5328]

@@castonyoung7514 shut up lmao. Its people like you that are helping his reelection right now.

[@leaderofcommunistchina1427]

"and ill see you in court... Hopefully not literally" 😶

[@Daniel-mq3nf]

It's funny because he will see them in court

[@Eweyhen]

The way you laughed doing your transition to Ting was great

[@ianhopping105]

Oh god I've got to do an ad. I can at keep a straight face, I know how ridiculous it is...

[@JackGroundhog]

It’s gotten to the point I almost come here just for the segue to the ad at the end. Well done, Mr. Eagle, sir. @LegalEagle

[@Silhalnor]

That transition to an ad was kind of amazing. Especially the "oh god." It was a pretty nice transition but _such_ a tonal shift!

[@dfredericks86]

I'm glad you laughed at the darkness of that inglorious transition to your ad...lol. I did.

[@zacharyneff5186]

I'm not, Nor do I have any intention of going to Law School, however, I love listening to your breakdowns. You're so knowledgeable and concise.

[@hebl47]

This was one of the best segues I've seen in a long while!

[@uss_04]

The sad thing is that most people are “sure” it probably wont happen. But words have meaning. And Rule By Tweet/Fiat is being pushed more and more every day.

[@KrappyFriedCat]

Or you could start being more positive instead of fear mongering. Cant just keep letting people riot.

[@SwtBeat]

KrappyFriedCat Yes, instead of addressing the underlying issues which caused people to riot we should have our military subdue citizens. Obviously that makes MUCH more sense and has a MUCH more positive spin on it.

[@DAndyLord]

@@SwtBeat The underlying reasons are deep seeded tied in poverty, government authority and racism. They can't be solved over night. There is a point where the protesters need to go home and the legislators need to get to work. Secondly, the rioters are doing a disservice to the really important message the real protesters are trying to get out there. I'm all for the police coming down hard on the rioters, but the peaceful protesters should be left alone. They have every right to protest, and a very good reason to be angry.

[@123kvann]

@@DAndyLord Just a friendly FYI, it is "deep seated" (not deep seeded)... Thanx.

[@OhJustSomeRandomGuy]

"LawFare... Bar none..." I see the thing you did there.

[@clockworkkirlia7475]

I have no words at this point. Well, obviously I do, but you get me. Keep trying to do the good thing, Eagle, and thank you for keeping us abreast of the bad news; hopefully we can use that knowledge to fight it.

[@sopranophantomista]

Not going to lie, you're a big help through all of this as an outsider to the ins and outs of US law. Thank you for breaking down everything into manageable chunks and conveying the information in a calm, conversational manner.

[@evandavis5223]

OBJECTION The one phone call thing is a tv and movie thing. You're never guaranteed anything when arrested.

[@Jartran72]

How are you supposed to get your lawyer there? I dont see many policemen make the effort to look up their mumber and call them themself.

[@stevenwitcher8087]

While the “one phone call” is a trope, you do have a right to contact counsel among several other rights that allow communication under certain circumstances.

[@somethinunameit637]

At any point when you are being interrogated you have the right to say "I want my lawyer/I want a lawyer" and legally the interrogation must stop and a lawyer must be called for you. You are not garenteed the one phone call bs.

[@storyspren]

​@@Jartran72 Sixth Amendment Assistance of Counsel clause. Basically they gotta. If they don't, you raise a big stink about it and sue them. If they instead give you unqualified counsel or someone who's throwing the defense, you have a different 6A case about the effectiveness of counsel instead.

[@FectacularSpail]

Even if it has become somewhat of a norm (maybe? somebody check me on this) you'd probably be making a collect call from a landline. The chances of them letting you use your Ting mobile are laughably negligible.

[@SteveB509]

Idea for a follow-up video: Explain the Uniform Code of Military Justice (and/or other parallel legal systems in the US!). When can a Soldier refuse an unlawful order, crimes and punishment under UCMJ, etc

[@dr.floridamanphd]

Look up Article 90 in the UCMJ. If a superior officer gives a lawful order, and they are in our chain of command, we must follow it. However, if an unlawful order is given it is our duty to not only refuse to carry it out but to report them to the appropriate authority. Usually the next ranking officer after him.

[@schnitzek]

@@dr.floridamanphd but if it is the president?

[@charlescannon2469]

@@schnitzek Congress? The american people? Russia? EU? UN? ......Well...shit. I got nobody.

[@Xentrolis]

@@dr.floridamanphd - This seems like another of those things that look good on paper, but pretty shaky in practice. Like someone else has asked, what if it's the president?

[@kahlzun]

Could be very relevant, very quickly.

[@tcrmoving]

That was one of the best advert segways I’ve ever watched. Touchè sir, Touché.

[@tamewind]

This is such good content. I learn so much from your channel. Keep up the good work.

[@katutaistelija]

It feels surreal seeing the news from the U.S. these days. Stay strong.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

@Grailsarvas Trump is simply a tool. The real war has yet to surface.

[@compatriot852]

This is a worldwide thing. Not sure why you are trying to frame it as only an American thing.

[@mariomoneta2833]

@@compatriot852 wtf global? Where hahahahahahaha

[@pedrorosas3842]

While I was watching this, my mom came into my room and said "Honey, have you heard?," "There are lawyers who are on Facebook!" I still can't believe or understand her excitement over it. It was weird. We don't even need a lawyer

[@yoda5280]

Pedro Rosas Might wanna get prepared for a parental divorce...

[@pedrorosas3842]

@@yoda5280 Master Yoda what the heck dude

[@usagi2934]

@@pedrorosas3842 gone senile he has, gotten over his divorce he has not

[@davidanderson_surrey_bc]

We don't even need FaceBook either.

[@maxmuetze9083]

In a revolution the lawyers will be shot too - in a socialist society no lawyers are needed.

[@thesoupin8or673]

Great content LegalEagle! I learn so much here.

[@jakubdrobek6353]

Great video! Keep up the great work! Obviously all the current issues require attention and your insight is extremely helpful to so many people trying to understand what can/can't they do, but I came across a great movie to review - The Judge w/ RDJ, a movie that's majority of scenes are happening in a courtroom!

[@erikjohnson1684]

"In ways that most people would find unobjectionable, at least in this day and age" I'm not so sure anymore...

[@danielr82]

I was really thrown when he said this, having just detailed that the insurrection act was used 1, 1957 Eisenhower used to escort students into school. (pro civil rights) 2, 1962 + 63 Kennedy used to enforce civil rights laws (pro civil rights) 3, 1967 Johnson used to stop riot after MLK assasination (against civil rights) 4, 1992, Bush, used against race rioiters (against civil rights) following the clip of GB saying "there are 3000 national guardsmen on duty... I will use whatever force necessary to restore order" @8:59 he says that it's use has been unobjectionable. 1967 MLK was assassinated, the people rioted and the army was used to stop people protecting and rioting against discrimination. 1992, four police officers were acquitted, following there being video evidence of them beating a black man. the army is called in to stop protests and riots that are against discrimination. Then he says it's been used in ways that people don't find objectionable. It's looking like 2020, insurrection act may be used (again) to suppress protests and riots that are (again) against discrimination. I can't understand why for half the uses of this law it's been used to suppress those seeking equality, but to reasonable and educated people that use is "unobjectionable"

[@bwtv147]

@Apathetic Apparition And to insure that no demonstrators are on camera when Trump stages a photo op.

[@TomGeller]

Thanks for staying on top of all this. Qualified legal information = practical information.

[@alienbob21]

I know it is tense times...and I appreciate your channel and your videos so much. They have helped with understanding the legal process and laws in a really accessible and understandable way. If you are still making react videos I have a Recommendation for A Lawyer Reacts...Fracture from 2007.

[@ChrisinOSMS]

During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard set up at the private airport near my neighborhood and flew supplies to Bay St.Louis, Gulfport, and Biloxi as the Hwy 90 Biloxi Bay Bridge was destroyed. There were Humvees at intersections and armed guardsmen throughout our city. It was a surreal experience for sure.

[@SeanA099]

An interesting thing with posse comitatus is involved in nuclear missile convoys. The Air Force is required to be escorted by US Marshals to control traffic while driving

[@user-mc2qh4nv5g]

Neat, so a bit like a motorcade or quite literally a police escort for important items.

[@dr.floridamanphd]

The Department of Energy transports nuclear missiles. Not the Air Force. Back in the 2000s a bomber flew from either Offut or FE Warren AFB to Barksdale AFB, LA, with nuclear weapons and got in some serious shit. For two reasons. 1) They weren’t authorized to transport them 2) they were armed. Number 2 is much more serious but I believe the pilots involved were relieved of their flight status afterwards as well. The crew that loaded the bombs were also given a court-martial and dishonorably discharged if memory serves.

[@frontierbrainrobby5449]

That's also not Posse Comitatus. Law enforcement protecting the military is very different from the military serving as law enforcement

[@franklinpatterson3693]

Railroad the same

[@SeanA099]

FrontierBrainRobby no. It means that the military cannot stop traffic. They need civilian law enforcement to do that

[@bigbrotherlop87]

"Lawfare, it's simply bar none the best resource..." I see what you did there.

[@ashleylight9882]

The shade...

[@ScreaminEmu]

New sub to your channel, Devin; great content. As a poli-sci major in college who now flies jets for a living, I really appreciate the effort you're putting in here. It's nice to dabble in politics and law again in a way that isn't just stupidly biased and asinine.

[@rrrosecarbinela]

Thank you for sharing so honestly and clearly.

[@JonasDAtlas]

Oh wow, you're really putting a lot of videos out lately. Then again, I suppose there is a lot of scary stuff to talk about right now.

[@wrongrabbit]

11:55 "military that's trained to kill and a police force that's trained to serve and protect" Looks like quite the opposite these days...

[@HauptmannKrause]

Oh, shut up.

[@inkaf225]

@@HauptmannKrause nice way of saying you have no idea what your talking about.

[@jirieskelinen5607]

Well though there definetly exists many bad cops i do think that its kind of over reacting to say that police on general wants to kill you.

[@ravengrey6874]

After flicking through the Army Field Manual on Civil Disturbance (FM 3 19-15 if you're so interested) and assuming the deployed personnel followed the guidelines therein, IMHO, the military might actually do a *better* job at policing the protests and protecting the rights of the protestors than some of the police departments on the flipside, a lot of PDs are backing off the riot responses, I just wish that it hadn't taken a week of bad press and lawsuits to get them there

[@sirmoonslosthismind]

@@ravengrey6874 it would probably depend on which elements of the military were called upon to do the job. army police should be very familiar with fm 3.19-15. other elements of the army have not been trained from that field manual and may not even know it exists. if, for example, an infantry unit were called upon to control a protest, they're much more likely to "wing it" and to fill in any gaps in their instructions with the training _they_ have received.

[@kevinddawson127]

You Rock, thanks for clearing things like this for me.

[@zipzeolocke2]

I've been using Ting for years and can vouch for how awesome they are! What a great easy to use and helpful service that practically cut my monthly cell phone bill in half compared to using AT&T previously. I feel so relieved

[@Firgof]

Objection: "To Serve and Protect" is a slogan that was birthed from a PR campaign, not a mission statement. The police have the right to not serve or protect and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court. They have no 'duty to intervene' if they see and are capable of stopping a murder, for instance. The SC believes that the police forces of the US exist only to uphold laws, investigate possible crimes, and make arrests; not to maintain civil order, protect civilians, and et cetera.

[@JoshSweetvale]

Well they should.

[@Firgof]

@@JoshSweetvale There's a lot of things the police 'should be' which they aren't. Accountable for their actions, for one. Even if you manage to evade Qualified Immunity and successfully sue a police officer for violating your civil rights (good luck) guess who pays out? You do. The taxpayer pays it. How much does that impact the police budget if they have a friendly mayor and AG? Not a bit. So you sue them, you get your case won, and everybody *but* the police lose. We need serious, deep, reforms in our police forces.

[@hectortorres4738]

One of my teachers used to be part of swat and he witnessed a arm robbery at a gas station but they didn’t do anything the reason that they gave him was that swat is not meant for petty crime or something like that.

[@noenken]

Well isn't that false advertisement then?

[@MonkeyGaming861]

Its actualy verry commen to see police not intervene, remember the fiasco where a civilian stoped someone on a train who was swinging a knife while police did not intervene until after the armed man was uperhanded by the civilian? Ofcourse police are not obligated to endanger there own lifes to save another. They are just as much people as enyone else who deserve to live another day. If you were legaly obligated to risk your life to save another nobody would join the police force that is actualy sane.

[@TacComControl]

I used to know this teacher at Seminary who became a lawyer. No one better! Bar nun!

[@Nortarachanges]

Holy moly, what a pun ^_^

[@elizathegamer413]

@@grapetoad6595 lol it's a pun

[@MrPatchPlays]

I sea what you did thar

[@RichardTuckman]

@@grapetoad6595 nobody thought this

[@r.b.rozier9692]

Booooooooooo

[@Pastor_Madeline]

I just became the Title IX coordinator for our higher-ed school, can you do a video about that position and the new regs? I’m overwhelmed that it’s such an intricate process for live hearings and have a full-time position in addition.

[@Jsmith9055]

Flawless segue! Positively flawless. So good i may in fact check out Ting mobile.

[@suntzupup]

you can't keep a straight face through that ad transition. i couldn't either.

[@DKingOf514]

17:40 "it's not clear how long he will be secretary of defense" 😂😂😂 savage

[@alexandrub8786]

That could alsi mean that it will change the name back to the old "secretary of war".

[@ubiergo1978]

@@alexandrub8786 Or it could change to a "new" one like... Secretary of Peace.... if you know what I mean. O.O

[@elbruces]

Me, watching him damn near cry talking about this: how is he possibly going to segue to his sponsor? Legal Eagle: nails the landing perfectly. Frighteningly perfectly.

[@NirvEnd]

That self realization at how horrible the situation is that you paused to laugh at the t-mobile ad that people really do need a lawyer and a call lest they be imprisoned quietly illegally.

[@BSinNYC]

Do we really expect him to ask (congress) for consent before he grabs us by the posse?

[@BehindtheseEyes]

🤫😄☺️

[@carmendebenedictis-larue6250]

Oh shiiiiiiiit 😂😂

[@NarturArkano]

Get that from Colbert, did we? Good reference.

[@MrWizeazz]

BSinNYC Lol Not to get into semantics though but doesn’t “let” imply consent?

[@lottenbavik6649]

Do you expect him to ask consent for anything 😳 and yes I got the joke but still valid question.

[@FrostedSapling]

This channel is a blessing, so much misinformation and confusion going on and LegalEagle is managing to keep up with it. Must be an incredible amount of work. We appreciate it!

[@tamhuy10]

@@randomxnp "Real lawyers" what makes those real lawyers more real than him ?

[@alonzobean1]

@@tamhuy10 They actually practice law. This guy has a sole purpose of giving biased information. Emit Sullivan does not have total power or control over the Flynn case. Separation pf powers does actually exist. Executive branch brings charges and Judicial decides. Sullivan cannot do both no matter how much he hates Flynn.

[@tanszism]

@@randomxnp The Legal Eagle is much more qualified, your friend there Robert Barnes is a pundit who even failed an easy case like the one with wesley snipes. he's a hack. he's just bad-mouthing him because of his political leanings.

[@willheard5778]

I am a big fan of this channel and when you squeeze popular legal dramas through your jurisprudent algorithm it is particularly entertaining. When I was younger I saw a movie with Judd Nelson, William Hurt, Ray Walston, and Darrin McGavin called "From the Hip". It was a courtroom drama/comedy that remains one of my favorites. Can you do a reaction video to this movie? It's characters resorted to some real interesting(and questionable) legal tactics. Thanks, and keep up the good work!

[@rickya.livingston5110]

Appreciate the timely lesson... Thanks🤙🏾

[@TheRibottoStudios]

The Insurrection Act: *exists* *Military:* _good soldiers follow orders_ *Civilians:* why do I hear boss music? *Mayor Bowser:* THIRD AMENDMENT BITCHES!!! *maniacal laughter* GTFO outta my city.

[@mirakovacs6981]

-me being non-fluent in English, not even understanding the joke but still liking cause it sounds too funny not to-

[@TheRibottoStudios]

@@mirakovacs6981 The Third Amendment (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime. Meaning that what happened in Washington DC was in violation of that amendment because they were quartered up in hotels which are private property and Bowser used this amendment to basically kick the troops the hell out of DC.

[@angelmoon6523]

Who knew the 3rd amendment would ever be used in modern times lol

[@mirakovacs6981]

@@TheRibottoStudios ooooh wow! Thank you so much!

[@gimpleg9913]

Nothing like trying times to keep a lawyer (and even a legal educator) busy!

[@Wastelander1972]

And as we speak, an entire neighborhood and city hall has been occupied by what are essentially insurgents. Well.

[@HatWearingDog]

That’s what I was thinking... hell your comment is 2 weeks old and it’s STILL alive and well. I support BLM, but this shit is too far. It’s literally being run by a SoundCloud rapper, people are getting hurt, and 7 blocks of apartments and businesses are cut off from the rest of the world. The Seattle mayor needs to get her shit together and end this.

[@joeisawesome540]

@@HatWearingDog yea.. try the civil rights era then.. it was WAY bigger than what is happening today.. guess you did not support the civil rights movement in the 1960s because too many blacks were on the streets? When asked, a lot of so-called whites allies in the civil rights eras felt that the blacks went too far..

[@evolvedelephant7674]

Joe isawesome Dude, the issue isn’t even about civil rights anymore, it’s just slowly devolved into political weaponizing for an ideology that has little to do with protecting the rights of African Americans. Also a little disingenuous to try and pull the racist card here, when there are entire BLM protests that are made up of mostly white people. Quit trying to make everything about people’s race because it is obviously not working, just makes people feel more personally attacked and then guess what, they fight back because they feel threatened and any relation/connection is completely forgotten or lost in the bickering of who is the bigger racist.

[@MaikasCooking]

I love how you are addressing these current events issues.

[@Typhy7]

"Police force that is trained to serve and protect." Are you sure about that mate?

[@dynamicworlds1]

Pretty sure the courts have ruled that they have no obligation to do so, and that's not at all what their training it about (unless we're talking about serving and protecting themselves)

[@MonkeyGaming861]

That is there goal not there obligation they are just people and shouldent be forced to take a bulet for someone else

[@irri3191]

The words I'm afraid should not be an option for police officer .

[@alexanderrobins7497]

It is like when SPD tells protesters: "We care about your safety, and to prove it, we will mace, tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber bullets". WTF

[@PhyreI3ird]

@@dynamicworlds1 Do you have sources to share on what their training is? It's really important those things be brought up specifically so that they can be addressed for reform.

[@decrexendo]

"(...) a police force which is trained to serve and protect." Not sure about that one, chief.

[@FarnhamJ07]

Yep. The police have become a paramilitary force; I see no real difference between them and the military in this context.

[@dennis4774]

@@FarnhamJ07 us military police try everything to not end up with a lot of paper work and explain to our chain of command what happened. then go to a court like trial to explain why we use deadly force. Police just write one paper and that it.

Lack of mechanised Armor divisions, no artillery parks, no air strike on call, no standard issue flak jackets, camo or gun emplacements. The police couldn’t hold Kabul as they are now. Much less a major us city with much more hostiles and no permission to actually engage the enemy.

[@nfzeta128]

@@dennis4774 pretty much. The problem is the police have slowly been given more military might without the corresponding restrictions and checks the military has.

[@stephenpourciau8155]

@ They don't seem to need permission to engage the "enemy". Which in this case you're referring to your fellow citizens as enemies, kind of surreal.

[@TheBigJConYouTube]

My grandpa was actually in the 101st airborne in 1957 and was deployed to Little Rock as part of that group.

[@br1ght3std4y]

I love the advertising towards the end of the video lol. I completely understand that ads like that are the way many, if not most channels support themselves, BUT it was abundantly clear he hated to do that lmao. The laugh as he said it gave it away lol

[@cnhertzog]

I’m a long-time watcher and I’m truly enjoying the recent frequency of your videos but the content is far more depressing, mirroring what the world is feeling, I suppose. But these are topics that NEED to be covered and the world crying out in pain might just be crucial for desperately-needed change to the system as more and more people are finally accepting as truth that humanity has been in pain for so long and this pain is just now finally being heard and seen. I’m glad you’re able to cover it with some impartiality by providing multiple sides (something the general public needs to learn how to digest and then put to use themselves.). Although some topics might come with intense indigestion, there’s always Tums and Omeprazole** to rectify those isssues that so I say: write on and keep ‘em coming!! Thanks, Devin! (**Note: I’m neither a medical professional nor providing medical advice for other viewers.)

[@seand.g423]

You _really_ need to reposition that disclaimer...

[@SilentRiver00]

Lmao at the non-medical-advice! 😂 Agreed on all points, and well said! I wish more people approached topics with Devin's level-headed, fact-based logic.

[@quonomonna8126]

when i first started watching your channel years ago, i would have never imagined that it would become one of the most important channels on youtube ever

[@Chrisisplays]

yeah, but it isnt.

[@abbadabbafartcum]

He isn't correctly explaining this by any means. Please look it up for yourself. He isn't even correctly relaying the facts of the situation leading to this.

[@Chrisisplays]

@@abbadabbafartcum He's totally emotional and does not see this rational and unbiased.

[@arinbaun9452]

Real talk here, though: If Dwayne Johnson does actually decide to run for President, he's going to need a running mate. Ideally, one who is well versed in the workings of the American legal and political systems. One who could match his charisma and character, and give him proper insight to being an effective politician. Someone like you, Devin. With close examination of both candidates currently, it is clear that much of the US is not too excited about this coming election. I am confident that a Johnson/Stone 2020 ticket would bring millions of traditionally non-voters out of the woodwork. The Rock and The Eagle. I would ship that so hard.

[@hiesisme907]

I say Kevin Hart

[@hiesisme907]

And I dint read full comment

[@rolandgharfine534]

I hope you can talk about cyber crime and cyber laws, would love to hear your take on this.

[@megwilcox9774]

Another excellent explanation. Thanks. People seem to conflate "legal" with "moral", but the fact is that moral people can do illegal things, while immoral people can use the law in immoral ways.

[@miamafalda1118]

Facts! Morality /=/ legality.

[@afiiik1]

I remember talking about the rise of fascism in 1930s Europe with my students and they couldn't understand how the "decent people could just let that happen" and that was four years ago. I told them to watch what's happening in America right now, how facts and truth and human rights are becoming void terms. The same thing is a bit more stealthily happening here in the Czech Republic. It is scary.

[@LeutnantJoker]

Same in Germany.

[@compatriot852]

Except it's more or less the rise of socialism and communism again in Europe. Nations, such as the UK becoming more authoritarian regarding speech, hundreds of permit/legalwork for everything, taxes up the ass. Europe is just America on fast forward when it comes to the worse than could happen politically.

[@afiiik1]

@Grailsarvas at length

[@Thundermikeee]

@Grailsarvas I think its more a matter of how deep is appropriate to go. there is so much history to go through in so few years. you could go a year alone into the why and how of people allowing hitler to do what he did, you could go a year alone into the intricacies of Ceasars lifetime. or into almost any single topic. i know i had 7 years of history classes in Switzerland, 2 of those were spent in WW1 and WW2, one in middleschool and one in high school, there just is only so much you can fit in 1 year with 1 or 2 hrs a week. I am a curious one and i was lucky to also have taken philosophy, psychology and paedagogy in highschool which lent me some philosophical, sociological and psychological background, but i still feel like i dont know half the things id want to know about most time periods in history

[@afiiik1]

@@compatriot852 my nation has gone through both and both extremes are horrible. And neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism work on their own. We need to accept that there is a middle ground and that we have to carefully negotiate where it is.

[@cerberus3610]

I enjoy the videos. Gives me a basis to start researching subjects in Law. Is there a way i missed to suggest or request specific topics be discussed.

[@eldenringer6466]

Very scary. Good piece.

[@JohnArmwood]

As a retired Constitutional Law Professor, I have issues with your interpretation of the Insurrection Act. Using definitional reasoning, a basic component of legal analysis insurrection is defined legally as a form of sedition, rebellion against the government. which would not by any stretch of the imagination include First Amendment-protected Free Speech. Governor Abe Fortas was engaging in insurrection by refusing to obey a Supreme Court ruling. He was disobeying a Federal kaw The situations are completely different. Most civil disturbances are violations of State law, not Federal law. That is why Governors have correctly argued that they must invite Federal troops in. That is arguably what happened in California in 1992. We must not forget that we have a Federal system of government where most policing power resides within the States. The District of Columbia is on horrific exception where America has imposed taxation without representation.

[@JohnArmwood]

Is not a protected right and neither was the Boston Tea Party which was nothing but looting. Oh, I forgot that it was done by White people so people like you think it was OK even though ot was illegal.

[@dr.floridamanphd]

John Armwood, don’t feed the troll. He’s posting that comment everywhere.

[@emotingtanooki6405]

TL;DR- Would it be possible for State police to arrest Troops illegally used within a State? I asked this the other day but the comment got lost in the commotion. If Trump deployed the military into a State in a way that is illegal, could State police arrest the troops? If the deployment is illegal wouldn't the troops lose any immunity they might have and could be arrested just like any other armed civilian trying to control people by force? This might be a way for State police to prevent escalation. A debatable but likely significant number of soldiers might fire on civilians if ordered, I can't imagine that a significant number of U.S. soldiers would be willing to fire on Law Enforcement in the name of "law and order". Keeping in mind, this would be in a situation where the deployment isn't legally justifiable. And because it never can be said enough to everyone: Remember to Vote.

[@murderouskitten2577]

That would be fun thing to watch. You have to have power backing you to enforce arrest. And police dont have that power over military.

[@TheRibottoStudios]

THAT WOULD BE AMAZING TO WITNESS.

[@anna-flora999]

I feel like, even if it's legally possible, practically it isn't

[@thomasjackson2223]

Something like that might happen, but it would not likely be a mass arrest of troops, but rather, a negotiation between the state governor and the military commander.

[@andybunn6096]

What law? You seem to be wrong on history and law and well in to fantasy land. Cops arresting troops? Seriously....

[@mesplin3]

18:00 That promotion tie-in is memorable.