| | |
|
ShianneWilliamsFirstPaper 7 - 01 Oct 2024 - Main.ShianneWilliams
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | How can she do this (legally)?
One of the main questions surrounding Hochul's deployment of the National Guard in the subways pertains to its legality. Does she have the authority to call in the National Guard? Doesn't the Fourth Amendment protect against these kinds of unprompted searches? As with many other legal issues, the answer to these questions depends on several factors. | |
<
< | The National Guard is a branch of the US military that serves both state and federal governments. At the state level, Governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies. In other words, Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to “civil unrest.” For example, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor deployed the National Guard to assist the disaster response and provide aid. Conversely, following the protests against systematic racism and police brutality in 2020, several Governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities.
You should have shown the statutory authorities involved, both federal and state,
| >
> | The National Guard is a branch of the US military that serves both federal and state governments. The federal government can utilize the National Guard under the Insurrection Act, Title 10 of the US Code, as happened during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. At the state level, Governors have the authority to use the National Guard when responding to domestic emergencies. In other words, Governors can call on the National Guard to address a range of issues, from natural disasters to “civil unrest.” For example, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Louisiana’s governor deployed the National Guard to assist the disaster response and provide aid. Conversely, following the protests against systematic racism and police brutality in 2020, several Governors deployed the National Guard to "restore order” in their respective cities. | | |
Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that checkpoint searches are not inherently unconstitutional. More specifically, in Michigan v. Sitz, the Court held that police sobriety checkpoints aimed at combating drunk driving do not violate the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |