Do You Remember Angelina Jolie's Bombshell Leather Versace Dress?
And other important questions
Good Morning:
Depends if you want rotten kids. I prefer to let them ferment.
To protect their eyes.
Definitely not. I can’t do a “cross check.”
Lots.
Yes. Speaking for all short people, I want to say that none of us wants to be with someone whom we have to risk neck pain to look in the face.
I confess that it had slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder.
Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable
updated us on all her protest activity and discussed the dynamics of escalation and de-escalation during protests. Then the estimable came by after another night in a bomb shelter to ask me all kinds of questions about the US legal system. Why does bail exist? What does “presumption of regularity” mean? Find out, only on #DogShirtTV:The Situation
In my “The Situation” column yesterday, I offered 21 propositions about what’s going on in Los Angeles:
The deployment of national guard or active duty troops in an American city to put down a rebellion or insurrection that isn’t happening, even if lawful, risks antagonizing people already offended by ICE actions they consider excessive. See points (2), (3), and (4).
Such actions sometimes lead to tragic and unnecessary confrontations that give rise to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young songs.
Avoiding tragic and unnecessary confrontations is generally desirable.
It is thus unwise, imprudent, and stupid to take actions for performative reasons that one might reasonably anticipate would increase the risks of such confrontations.
A president who insists on conducting aggressive ICE operations in a city that plainly wants a lighter touch and who then responds to scattered acts of violence by putting troops in the streets and risking greater confrontation, one might worry, is less interested in ensuring law and order than he is in putting on a show of domination.
Yesterday On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Caroline Cornett
The National Guard in Los Angeles
Chris Mirasola explains the theory of presidential authority known as the protective power invoked by President Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles. Mirasola emphasizes that unlike the Insurrection Act, the protective power does not authorize military personnel to undertake law enforcement functions.
We can infer that the legal authority for this mission is the protective power from the text of the second paragraph of the president’s memorandum. We are told that the president has authorized National Guard personnel to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.” This phrasing of the mission is nearly identical to the text of the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel memo, which stands for the modern executive branch understanding of the protective power. In this April 29, 1971, memo, OLC reiterated the longstanding executive branch view that the president has “inherent authority to use troops for the protection of federal property and federal functions.” This understanding of presidential power is based on a broad understanding of the president’s authority under the Take Care Clause, in addition to dicta from In re Neagle and In re Debs, asserting what OLC calls “the President’s inherent powers to use troops to protect federal property and functions.”
On Treason and Traitors
Dan Maurer discusses the narrow definition of treason in United States law and how courts have historically interpreted the treason clause in the Constitution. Maurer warns that overuse of the term in today’s political discourse dilutes the seriousness of the offense.
Unless we have a clear cut case of joining a foreign nation’s military or non-state armed group—like American citizens who have joined the Islamic State group in its war against the U.S.—the prosecution needs to make the preliminary argument that the defendant “adhered to” and aided an “enemy” of the United States. The plain reading of both the treason clause and 18 U.S.C. § 2381 would suggest that an enemy is a party levying war against the United States. This constrained definition of “enemy” has long historical roots: For more than 600 years, it has been consistently interpreted by English and later American courts to mean a foreign entity with whom we are in a state of open armed conflict. Limiting the definition of enemy in this way is consistent with the narrow applicability of the crime intended by the Framers and described by the Supreme Court.
The Problem is Terrorism, Not Migration
Thomas Renard and Méryl Demuynck discuss their research on the nexus of migration and terrorism in Europe, which found that terrorist attacks by immigrants have not increased in frequency since 2017 and that migrants are much more likely to be victims of political violence than perpetrators.
An analysis of the perpetrators’ legal status reveals that the majority (60 percent) either held a residence permit, refugee status, or a tolerated stay permit at the time of the attack. Irregular migrants accounted for less than a third (thirteen individuals). Strikingly, more than half of the identified perpetrators (51 percent) had lived in Europe for at least five years before committing an attack, with an average stay of eight years. This would suggest that their radicalization occurred after their arrival in Europe, challenging the assumption that terrorism is an external threat imported through immigration. Instead, the problem seems to be less about immigration and more about integration and radicalization prevention in Europe. Moreover, these numbers remain infinitesimally small compared to the nearly 8.5 million first-time asylum applications filed in EU countries between 2014 and 2024.
Kashmir’s Crisis and India’s Democratic Dilemma
In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Shareen Joshi discusses the cycle of retaliatory violence, rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in India, and fractures in the ruling party following the April 22 attack in Kashmir. Joshi warns that India’s lack of international support compared to Pakistan and issues in India's media and information ecosystem leave it vulnerable to future crises.
In this pivotal moment, analysts are focusing on the cross-border dimensions of the crisis. But an equally urgent threat remains underexamined: India’s internal fractures. The rising tide of majoritarianism, systematic suppression of dissent, and a broken information system has not merely divided the nation since April 22—it has fundamentally compromised India’s strategic resilience. This has created vulnerabilities that adversaries can readily exploit. Without confronting these self-inflicted wounds, these internal contradictions are likely to continue to hollow out India’s strength from within, rendering its considerable military capabilities increasingly irrelevant on the global stage.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, I sit down with Anna Bower, Roger Parloff, and James Pearce to discuss a Supreme Court opinion blocking discovery in a lawsuit against the Department of Government Efficiency, the criminal indictment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and Trump’s recent executive order targeting Harvard.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is Ed the zebra, who got airlifted today:
In honor of today’s Beast—who am I kidding, the zebra got airlifted. Just laugh at him.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
 | A guest post by
|