Jennifer Elsea
@jnklz.bsky.social
Legislative attorney at CRS. NatSec, IHL, international law, etc. Army Intelligence officer in previous life. Opinions mine. No skeets from this account are attributable to CRS.
It still blows my mind that so many of the legal experts who were quick to explain the meaning of this statute to us all did not spot this obvious reference to the regular military, or at least never addressed it. I wonder if there was some preference for reading it otherwise.
November 13, 2025 at 10:16 PM
It still blows my mind that so many of the legal experts who were quick to explain the meaning of this statute to us all did not spot this obvious reference to the regular military, or at least never addressed it. I wonder if there was some preference for reading it otherwise.
Thanks. I’ll try to look out for that in the future. My eyes aren’t good enough to make out the fingers.
November 12, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Thanks. I’ll try to look out for that in the future. My eyes aren’t good enough to make out the fingers.
What are the tells? Other than the interaction seemed a little too good to be real.
November 12, 2025 at 3:42 PM
What are the tells? Other than the interaction seemed a little too good to be real.
Oh crap. I’ll delete then.
November 12, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Oh crap. I’ll delete then.
I think it would be worthwhile for someone to point out. Hello, Illinois? Oregon? California?
November 12, 2025 at 5:53 AM
I think it would be worthwhile for someone to point out. Hello, Illinois? Oregon? California?
This would probably require a constitutional amendment. Also
The records of the constitutional convention reveal the founders believed impeachment would be a sufficient counter to abuse of the pardon power. The records do not indicate whether the founders then shared a good hearty laugh at that point.
November 12, 2025 at 2:52 AM
This would probably require a constitutional amendment. Also
TBF, Dulles is one of the airports that belonged to the Brits before the Continental Army took it over.
November 12, 2025 at 2:08 AM
TBF, Dulles is one of the airports that belonged to the Brits before the Continental Army took it over.
The gov’t agrees “the regular forces” can mean standing military in other contexts, but gives no examples where the phrase means anything other than that.* It argues the phrase must be adapted to fit its preferred historical narrative. In which case it means everybody else.
*there aren’t any
🧵👇
*there aren’t any
🧵👇
Gov’t brief in Illinois NG case explains why “regular forces” in the context of §12406 is not a reference to standard military usage of a term of art, but instead means whoever regularly executes the law. One might object that the term could have been omitted without changing the meaning, but—>
November 11, 2025 at 11:37 PM
The gov’t agrees “the regular forces” can mean standing military in other contexts, but gives no examples where the phrase means anything other than that.* It argues the phrase must be adapted to fit its preferred historical narrative. In which case it means everybody else.
*there aren’t any
🧵👇
*there aren’t any
🧵👇
This is the supplemental to the first amicus brief, which also mentioned it. (And not to brag, but I made this point when the Ninth Circuit first failed to see it. Ok I’m bragging.)
If Congress had meant civilian law enforcement, it would have named the marshal. When the law was enacted, the marshal was about all there was for federal law enforcement.
November 11, 2025 at 8:53 PM
This is the supplemental to the first amicus brief, which also mentioned it. (And not to brag, but I made this point when the Ninth Circuit first failed to see it. Ok I’m bragging.)
Yes, @martylederman.blsky.social wrote about it in this amicus brief
www.supremecourt.gov
November 11, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Yes, @martylederman.blsky.social wrote about it in this amicus brief
Mostly that and the marshals, along with a few other revenue collectors. That it would have occurred to anyone to use the term “forces” to describe them is inconceivable to me.
November 11, 2025 at 8:29 PM
Mostly that and the marshals, along with a few other revenue collectors. That it would have occurred to anyone to use the term “forces” to describe them is inconceivable to me.
No. That could amount to commandeering.
November 11, 2025 at 8:03 PM
No. That could amount to commandeering.
How are the troops going to buy anything there if they aren’t getting paid?
November 11, 2025 at 7:22 PM
How are the troops going to buy anything there if they aren’t getting paid?
Amending the PCA is an odd way to go about this. The PCA already doesn’t apply to NG in state or title 32 purposes. It applies to NG in title 10 status as reserves, but why limit it to reservists who are NG? When Congress wants to authorize an exception to the PCA, it does so separately.
The bill
The bill
www.congress.gov
November 11, 2025 at 7:00 PM
Amending the PCA is an odd way to go about this. The PCA already doesn’t apply to NG in state or title 32 purposes. It applies to NG in title 10 status as reserves, but why limit it to reservists who are NG? When Congress wants to authorize an exception to the PCA, it does so separately.
The bill
The bill
Oh wait, I was right the proviso was in the *next* section. Not that it makes much difference. The point still stands and I withdraw my oops. (I hate it when I’m wrong about being wrong.)
November 11, 2025 at 6:29 PM
Oh wait, I was right the proviso was in the *next* section. Not that it makes much difference. The point still stands and I withdraw my oops. (I hate it when I’m wrong about being wrong.)
I so often find myself screaming at my phone or the TV “IN WHAT CONTEXT WOULD THAT STATEMENT BE APPROPRIATE?”
November 11, 2025 at 5:29 PM
I so often find myself screaming at my phone or the TV “IN WHAT CONTEXT WOULD THAT STATEMENT BE APPROPRIATE?”
This proviso was apparently eliminated in the 1956 reclassification of the military laws as obsolete since there were no longer provisions for raising volunteers.
November 11, 2025 at 5:20 PM
This proviso was apparently eliminated in the 1956 reclassification of the military laws as obsolete since there were no longer provisions for raising volunteers.
Is there any explanation as to how “regular forces” means civilian officials in the proviso? If the military need to execute the law or deal with invasions or rebellions cannot be met by civilians they call the militia first? What? And then volunteers, and apparently never the regulars?
November 11, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Is there any explanation as to how “regular forces” means civilian officials in the proviso? If the military need to execute the law or deal with invasions or rebellions cannot be met by civilians they call the militia first? What? And then volunteers, and apparently never the regulars?
Oops, I misremembered. Not the next section, in the same section but modifying the next sec of the Dick Act.
November 11, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Oops, I misremembered. Not the next section, in the same section but modifying the next sec of the Dick Act.
Can the majority also just pass another rule redefining legislative day for the purpose of this petition as not ever ending, like they did for the tariff emergency ones?
November 11, 2025 at 4:12 PM
Can the majority also just pass another rule redefining legislative day for the purpose of this petition as not ever ending, like they did for the tariff emergency ones?
It seems unusual to reduce the context of a term of art to the sentence in which it appears rather than the act as a whole, which uses the same term in the very next section in the same context (calling up militia to execute the law) to mean what everybody always thought it meant, but what do I know
November 11, 2025 at 4:00 PM
It seems unusual to reduce the context of a term of art to the sentence in which it appears rather than the act as a whole, which uses the same term in the very next section in the same context (calling up militia to execute the law) to mean what everybody always thought it meant, but what do I know
apparently it impliedly repeals other laws that permit augmentation of federal civilian law enforcement as necessary to permit the President to uproot the lives of NG members without the governor’s consent whenever federal LE is impeded.—>
November 11, 2025 at 4:00 PM
apparently it impliedly repeals other laws that permit augmentation of federal civilian law enforcement as necessary to permit the President to uproot the lives of NG members without the governor’s consent whenever federal LE is impeded.—>
So: Zero plus zero still equals bupkis! For now, anyway.
November 8, 2025 at 8:55 AM
So: Zero plus zero still equals bupkis! For now, anyway.