In the midst of escalating riots in Los Angeles, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faced criticism after incorrectly invoking "Article 10" of the U.S. Constitution. During a public statement, Pelosi urged both President Donald Trump and the public to consult "Article 10, section 12046," asserting that it prohibits the president from deploying the National Guard without a governor's consent. The problem? The Constitution contains only seven articles, and none address the deployment of the National Guard.
The confusion, it appears, arises from Pelosi's conflation of the Constitution with Title 10 of the United States Code, which does govern the federal authority over the National Guard. Conservative Brief pointed out this discrepancy, highlighting Pelosi's error. The situation is further complicated by historical precedents, such as President Lyndon B. Johnson's federalization of the Alabama National Guard during the 1960s to safeguard civil rights demonstrators—a move supported by federal law and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Legal experts, including Matt Margolis of PJ Media, have clarified that the statute Pelosi may have had in mind indeed involves issuing orders through governors but does not necessitate their consent. The president's power to activate the National Guard in times of emergency is well-established and has been consistently recognized in federal law and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
The backdrop to Pelosi's faux pas is a volatile Los Angeles, where riots broke out following ICE operations targeting illegal immigrants. In response, President Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops, with an additional 2,000 Guardsmen and 700 Marines later added to the force. Their mission is to protect federal agents, property, and facilities. According to CB, these federal forces have so far resulted in over 100 arrests.
Despite Pelosi's contention, public opinion seems to favor the president's actions. RMG Research conducted a survey among 1,000 registered voters, finding that 52 percent approved of the troop deployment, while 42 percent disapproved, and 7 percent remained undecided. The poll also reflected a majority support for ICE's immigration enforcement in the city.
Pelosi's mischaracterizations have cast a spotlight on her understanding or representation of the National Guard's federal role. By citing an article of the Constitution that does not exist, she has inadvertently questioned the legality of the president's actions. Nevertheless, the established law grants the president the authority to federalize the National Guard in domestic emergencies without requiring state consent.
This incident underscores the intricacies of federal-state relations during emergencies, but federal statutes and court precedents clarify the president's authority. As tensions in Los Angeles continue, the debate over the correct interpretation and application of these laws remains a focal point of discussion.
