When Dad barges into his son's house
Something happened again in Los Angeles. Trump and the governor are at odds.
The Trump administration bypassed the Governor of California, directly federalizing the California National Guard and sending troops to Los Angeles in an attempt to quell large-scale protests triggered by immigration enforcement. California Governor Newsom immediately filed a federal lawsuit, asking the court to rule this action unconstitutional and to withdraw the troops.
Friends back home must be confused, 'Can the governor really be this tough?'
If we consider the United States as a 'joint venture', the federal government is the headquarters, primarily handling foreign affairs, military, currency, and other 'company-wide matters'; while the 50 states are relatively independent branches, each responsible for local affairs such as public safety, education, public services, and tax management. The power distribution method set by the U.S. Constitution clearly states that any powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states.
The federal government is like a head of the family, while state governments are the grown-up children. When the children grow up and start their own families, they manage their own lives and affairs without parental interference. Parents only intervene when there is an 'enemy outside the home' or 'a major out-of-control situation at home'. Even then, there must be clear negotiation and procedures; parents cannot just barge in uninvited to intervene.
In reality, this 'self-governing' structure means that state governments not only have the right to refuse inappropriate federal interference but can also take legal action to challenge federal administrative actions in court.
The focus of the controversy in this incident is whether the president has overstepped his authority in mobilizing the National Guard of California.
The National Guard in the United States is usually under the command of state governments, deployed by the governors. Only in specific emergency situations can the president 'federalize' this force for national-level emergency response. However, whether the president can bypass the governor and unilaterally exercise this power must strictly meet specific legal conditions.
The Posse Comitatus Act passed in the United States in 1878 explicitly prohibits the use of federal troops in domestic civil law enforcement without authorization. The purpose of this law is to prevent the president from using military force to interfere in domestic affairs and undermine local autonomy. Even the Insurrection Act of 1807 only authorizes the president to deploy troops in extreme cases, such as when a state government cannot maintain order or when there is open rebellion against federal law.
More importantly, even if the president believes the situation meets these conditions, the law still requires that military orders must be issued through the governor. The president cannot unilaterally send troops into a state to suppress local protests, as this would be equivalent to headquarters bypassing the branch board of directors and directly sending security to take over local operations, or like parents barging in without their child's request, rummaging through things and saying 'I'm doing this for your own good,' which not only violates boundaries but also destroys mutual trust. This constitutes a serious overreach in the American political system.
After this incident, I revisited Dalio's old works. He suggested that the United States is currently in a turning point from the 'fifth stage' to the 'sixth stage'. In this phase, internal institutional tensions in the country have significantly increased, social consensus is becoming increasingly thin, and political polarization has become the main theme.