This ruling has been widely misinterpreted. It does not mean that the president can make an unlawful declaration and that the National Guard, for example, must follow it even though the declaration is inconsistent with the law.
That said, it’s not immediately clear to me that this would be illegal. The National Guard and the District of Columbia is a unique edge case because D.C. is not a state.
To be clear I don’t like this move nor where it is going. I’m not endorsing it, only trying to understand the legal basis.
You're right, but if someone down the chain of command refuses to obey a declaration they consider illegal, the president can (and will) just repeatedly fire people until someone does what he wants.
We're talking about the military. In the worst case he can do a lot more than fire people for their disobedience. He's already indicated publicly that he believes General Mark Milley ought to be hung, although to date his efforts to end the general have not gone further than removing his security detail. (the general is believed to be an assassination target of Iran...)
And to go back to the original comment, the president cannot be prosecuted for doing any of this since it's part of his "official duties." I'd expect this Supreme Court to walk back the specifics of this ruling the moment a Democratic president starts pushing the limits, however.
Any administration member can be pardoned by Trump for following illegal instructions, and Trump cannot be charged for a crime if it’s ‘related to the official duties of being the President.’
How is that not a blank check to do whatever you want? Anyone that breaks the law can be pardoned later and Trump has immunity.
That said, it’s not immediately clear to me that this would be illegal. The National Guard and the District of Columbia is a unique edge case because D.C. is not a state.
To be clear I don’t like this move nor where it is going. I’m not endorsing it, only trying to understand the legal basis.