Stephen Miller ‘Plenary Authority’ Remark Sparks Controversy
time.com
The Trump aide sparked suspicion when he stopped speaking after he mentioned the President’s “plenary authority,” though CNN blamed a technical issue.

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/post/533816

…

CNN asked Miller whether the Trump Administration will abide by a district judge’s order blocking the Guard’s deployment in Oregon. “Well, the Administration filed an appeal this morning with the Ninth Circuit,” Miller began. “I would note the Administration won an identical case in the Ninth Circuit just a few months ago with respect to the federalizing of the California National Guard.”

Then, Miller said: “Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the President has plenary authority, has—” before making an abrupt stop. Miller blinked several times, with anchor Boris Sanchez calling out his name, though he still did not respond.

…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power

A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations.

  • cygnus@lemmy.ca
    696·
    1 day ago

    Literally never killed a king in their history. The closest they got was killing aboriginal chieftains. Muricans just got salty because the King of England refused to let them colonize the native tribes in the great lakes region (which the crown had declared a self-governing protectorate). Americans declared a revolution and cloaked it in jingoistic hoopla about liberty. They also tried (and failed) to enlist Quebec to join them.

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      5·
      14 hours ago

      Muricans just got salty because the King of England refused to let them colonize the native tribes in the great lakes region (which the crown had declared a self-governing protectorate).

      Wait wait wait. The Brits were the good guys (in this one, very specific, instance)?

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        2·
        5 hours ago

        Broken clock, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763

        [Historians] have argued that colonial resentment of the proclamation contributed to the growing divide between the colonies and the mother country. Some historians say that even though the boundary was pushed west in subsequent treaties, the British government refused to permit new colonial settlements for fear of instigating a war with Native Americans, which angered colonial land speculators.

      • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
        6·
        14 hours ago

        Not the only time. Another example is the West Africa Squadron, where a small part of the British Navy tried to block all slave traffic coming out of West Africa.

        The UK has done some insanely horrific things, but it does have some legitimate bright spots in there.