Yea, I looked it up as well. That gives the president military power to enforce legislation (which afaik still has to be passed by congress) so it doesn't allow him to be a dictator unless you are using the leftist definition which is anyone who enforces any law at all
Sure, so he could use that article to use the military to enforce the law to hold the responsible parties accountable. Once again idk what this has to do with dictatorship, which is what I have asked twice now? That article doesn't allow him to use the military to do whatever the hell he wants and doesn't give him absolute power as in a dictatorship. Unless, like I mentioned before, you're talking about leftist definition of dictatorship
If war is declared on China the Supreme Court has set precedent that internment camps are legal during wartime.
Sorta, in the wake of the internment of Japanese during WWII, the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen could not be imprisoned if the federal government could not prove that they are disloyal while also ruling that a citizen was allowed to be punished for not following an illegal imprisonment of that nature.
Any suspected CCP assets could be interned. This could include all Democrats, foreign nationals, etc.
So any citizen would have to be PROVEN to be disloyal not just SUSPECTED to be for them to be imprisoned/detained indefinitely. It would depend how loose the requirements for proving disloyalty are.
Of course this is strictly talking about what that article LEGALLY allows, in reality he could get away with a lot more when commanding the military to enforce the laws.
Yea, I looked it up as well. That gives the president military power to enforce legislation (which afaik still has to be passed by congress) so it doesn't allow him to be a dictator unless you are using the leftist definition which is anyone who enforces any law at all
Sure, so he could use that article to use the military to enforce the law to hold the responsible parties accountable. Once again idk what this has to do with dictatorship, which is what I have asked twice now? That article doesn't allow him to use the military to do whatever the hell he wants and doesn't give him absolute power as in a dictatorship. Unless, like I mentioned before, you're talking about leftist definition of dictatorship
Sorta, in the wake of the internment of Japanese during WWII, the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen could not be imprisoned if the federal government could not prove that they are disloyal while also ruling that a citizen was allowed to be punished for not following an illegal imprisonment of that nature.
So any citizen would have to be PROVEN to be disloyal not just SUSPECTED to be for them to be imprisoned/detained indefinitely. It would depend how loose the requirements for proving disloyalty are.
Of course this is strictly talking about what that article LEGALLY allows, in reality he could get away with a lot more when commanding the military to enforce the laws.