[U] Indeed, The “Calling Forth” Clause Is Exceedingly Narrow In Scope: Exh. A — Chicago!

Update: 11 pm Central -- the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the trial court. Trump lacks the power to roll the National Guard into Chicago. The panel said that "political opposition is not insurrection". "Applying our tentative understanding of “rebellion” to the district court’s factual findings, and even after affording great deference to the President’s evaluation of the circumstances, we see insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois. The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority. The administration thus has not demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on this issue. . . ." Quite so. End update.

Honestly, I thought I had already posted this -- given that it was a hometown win -- but I was mistaken. This all transpired almost a week ago -- but it is very good news nonetheless.

Here is the very well reasoned 51 page federal court opinion, and a bit:

. . .That the Framers understood the Calling Forth Clause narrowly can be seen in Congress’s earliest efforts to put the clause into legislative practice. In 1792, Congress enacted an Act to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Act of May 2, 1792, 1 Stat. 264 (1792). In 1795, Congress repealed the 1792 Act and passed an amended version. Act of February 28, 1795, 1 Stat. 424 (1795). . . .[F]or the President to call forth the militia in cases where “the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed,” stricter controls were imposed. Id. Specifically, Congress authorized the calling forth of militia only when the forces of obstruction were “too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals” by the Act. Id.

These early efforts demonstrate contemporaneous understanding that military deployment for purpose of executing the laws was to be an act of last resort, only after other systems had failed. . . .

So be unafraid. Stand up for your rights. And resist peacefully. These moments of resistance, in the face of lawlessness, are all of our responsibilities, to our fellow citizens, and to our fellow humans whether they have papers or not.

नमस्ते