The clash: In a head-to-head confrontation, federalized National Guard or active-duty troops under the president's command would likely have superior legal standing over state-controlled Guard units to execute a valid federal order.
Replies
However, an order to seize ballots would be of dubious legality and would be challenged immediately.
sep 1, 2025, 4:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Posse Comitatus Act: This law generally prohibits the use of federal military forces to enforce domestic laws. The president's order to seize ballots, a function of civilian law enforcement and election administration, would be a clear violation of this act.
sep 1, 2025, 4:18 pm • 0 0 • view
Election interference laws: Multiple federal statutes criminalize military officers and federal employees from interfering with elections, including placing armed troops at polling places. Any officer who followed such an order would risk prosecution.
sep 1, 2025, 4:19 pm • 0 0 • view
A constitutional crisis: The country would face a constitutional crisis pitting a president's order against a governor's authority, triggering immediate legal challenges and widespread condemnation.
sep 1, 2025, 4:19 pm • 0 0 • view
Court intervention: The governor would immediately file a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the president's order. The courts, not military force, would be the ultimate arbiter of the dispute.
sep 1, 2025, 4:20 pm • 0 0 • view
Many federal officials have institutional experience upholding the law and would not participate in such a direct and unconstitutional assault on the election process.
sep 1, 2025, 4:56 pm • 0 0 • view
The president's lawyers would likely try to justify the action under a broad, aggressive interpretation of presidential powers, though such a position would have little historical or legal precedent.
sep 1, 2025, 4:21 pm • 0 0 • view
The state would argue that the president has no constitutional or statutory authority to interfere with state-run elections and that the order violates the Posse Comitatus Act.
sep 1, 2025, 4:20 pm • 0 0 • view
Civilian resistance: In addition to court action, election officials and the public would likely resist the federal action, leading to civil unrest and a complete breakdown of trust in the electoral process.
sep 1, 2025, 4:22 pm • 0 0 • view
If the Govenor Of A State Orders State, County & City Law Enforcement with reserves to protect Ballots at election time and the President attempts to take ballots what would be the outcome?
sep 1, 2025, 4:29 pm • 0 0 • view
A conflict between a state governor's orders to protect ballots and a president's attempt to seize them would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis with several possible outcomes. State authority over elections is established by the Constitution, but federal law also sets standards.
sep 1, 2025, 4:30 pm • 0 0 • view
A president's attempt to seize ballots would be seen as an unconstitutional overreach of power.
sep 1, 2025, 4:30 pm • 0 0 • view