When Federalizing of the National Guard makes sense, and how Trump can win in Court without having to appeal.

As Trump and Progressive States fight in court over Federalizing the National Guard, We the People have been forgotten.  

If a State is not responsive to the safety concerns of their constituents, the State has not lived up to a minimum obligation they have been entrusted to by their constituents, and thus would lose credibility in the Court's eyes if such evidence is provided. 

If residents of Portland have written to the Attorney General about safety issues, and the Attorney General has not acknowledged and replied to their constituent's concerns, the Judge would have cause for independently evaluating if the State of Oregon is living up to a reasonable standard of safety for their constituents, and if they have not lived up to a reasonable standard of safety, the Judge would then have cause to side with Trump's Federalizing of National Guards. 

Any communication that has occurred between consitituents and the Attorney General's Office of each State, or, other related offices regarding  constituent safety, that has been hidden, ignored or never responded to, could be considered obstruction of evidence by a judge.

However, it is up to the Trump Administration to ASK for copies of constituent correspondence to a State's Attorney General's Office of States the Federal Government is concerned have fallen short in the area of constituent safety.  

At some point, it is about We the People, and not about what could be gaslighting of the truth by State Goverments as they posture to a specific subset of constituents who agree with them politically, safety be damned.

 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.