Coffee Talk with Tiff

October 8, 2025 12:36 pm EDT Tiff Coffee Talk with Tiff Comments Off on Coffee Talk with Tiff
Coffee. Photo by Jonathan Thursfield.

It’s Wednesday…

President Shitshow’s public schedule for…

10/08/2025:

President Begging to See Violence on TV against protesters is hosting a roundtable to lie about what it means to be ANTIFA. In a preview of the nonsense we’ll hear, President Wannabe a King So Bad posted a 1963 DOJ memo without context and declared that the governor of Chicago and its mayor should be in jail.

The Memo:

Image Text:

U.S. Code. Those provisions authorize the President, when faced with such unlawful obstructions against the authority Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary” (10 U.S.C. § 333), and to use “the militia of the several states, and the militia of the United States includes the national guard, meaning the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard of the several states.” 10 U.S.C. § 311 and § 101 (9), (10), (12).

In furtherance of the President’s order the Secretary of Defense immediately called into active military service all of the units and members of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard of the State of Alabama for the indefinite military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by proper orders. The call was transmitted by the Secretary of the Army, acting by direction of, and under delegation of authority from, the Secretary of Defense, to the Governor of Alabama. The message (No. D.A. 340868, of June 11, 1963) was furnished immediately to the Governor of Alabama and to the Commanding Officers of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard of the State of Alabama.

It is apparent that the Alabama National Guard was called into active federal service pursuant to 10 U.S.C. §§ 332-4, and in accordance with the procedure provided in those sections. Since the call to federal service is made under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 3500, referred to by Mr. Bowen, the procedure prescribed by that section was not used.

I trust that the foregoing information will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,
(signature)
Attorney General

I googled my fingers to the bone trying to find a link to the actual memo. It exists—probably—but it’s hiding better than a politician’s ethics. Since I use ChatGPT, I tried out its Scholar AI for research help. Even that one couldn’t dig up the memo, but we did find its context and produce a summary.

🧾 The 1963 DOJ “National Guard” Memo — What It Really Means

People sometimes share a 1963 Department of Justice memo claiming it proves presidents can use the military against U.S. citizens. That’s false. The memo was written under Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy right after the University of Alabama desegregation crisis (June 11 1963). It simply explained the legal basis for President John F. Kennedy’s federalization of the Alabama National Guard to enforce a federal court order when Governor George Wallace blocked Black students from enrolling.

The memo cites 10 U.S.C. §§ 332–334—the same statutes in the Insurrection Act—to confirm that Kennedy acted lawfully and followed the correct chain of command.
It does not authorize lethal force, martial law, or political crackdowns.
It applies only when state authorities defy federal court orders or obstruct federal law, and it requires a presidential proclamation and limited, lawful enforcement.

Using that memo to justify sending troops against protesters or “protecting” federal property today would be unconstitutional and contrary to its original purpose. The 1963 memo is a record of enforcing civil rights and court rulings, not suppressing dissent.

Primary sources:

Before we produced the above summary with links to primary sources. I asked three questions:

AI response:

⚖️ 1. Does that memo say the National Guard can use lethal force?

No, absolutely not.

The memo contains no language whatsoever authorizing, suggesting, or even discussing the use of lethal force.
It’s purely administrative and legalistic — it explains which statute (10 U.S.C. §§ 332–334) Kennedy used to federalize the Alabama National Guard.

Those sections only deal with activation and command authority — not with rules of engagement or permissible force.
Once federalized, the Guard remains bound by:

  • The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385),
  • Department of Defense directives on use of force, and
  • Constitutional limits under the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment.

In 1963, the Guard’s mission was to enforce a court order peacefully, not to suppress a riot or use violence — and in fact, they did so without any use of force at all.

So:

🔹 The memo does not authorize lethal force.
🔹 It merely confirms that the President legally assumed command of the Alabama Guard.

🪖 2. Can the President use that memo as justification to nationalize Chicago’s Guard to “protect ICE facilities” or confront protesters?

No — that would be a gross and unlawful misreading of the memo and of 10 U.S.C. §§ 332–334.

Those statutes (sometimes called the Insurrection Act provisions) allow federalization only when:

  • There are unlawful obstructions or rebellions that make it impracticable to enforce federal law through normal means, and
  • The President’s intervention is necessary to enforce federal law or court orders — not to protect property from protest in general.

Even then, the President must:

  1. Issue a proclamation ordering the obstructionists to disperse,
  2. Demonstrate that state authorities are unable or unwilling to enforce federal law, and
  3. Limit action to restoring law and order, not political suppression.

In Chicago’s case:

  • Peaceful protest (even if disruptive) is not an insurrection.
  • ICE facilities are already protected by federal law enforcement (DHS, Federal Protective Service).
  • Using the Guard to “bash heads of protesters” would violate the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Posse Comitatus Act.

So even under the Insurrection Act, that would be illegal and unconstitutional — and citing the 1963 memo wouldn’t change that.

🚫 3. Does that memo justify Trump’s (or any president’s) overreach that courts already blocked?

No — it actually undercuts it.

Here’s why:

  • The 1963 memo is about federal enforcement of a federal court order — a lawful act to ensure constitutional rights.
  • Trump’s 2020 and 2021 attempts (e.g., threatening to “dominate the streets” with troops, or invoking the Insurrection Act for protests) were not tied to specific court orders or insurrections.
  • Courts and the military alike recognized those actions as potential overreach because they failed the necessity and proportionality tests that were met in 1963.

So, rather than supporting later misuse, the memo is a case study in proper limits:
→ Kennedy used his authority narrowly, under judicial supervision, to enforce civil rights law.
→ Any president citing that memo for domestic suppression or political aims would be twisting its intent beyond recognition.

The TL;DR version:

Fantasizing about Jailing his political opponents:

Daily reminder that it really isn’t normal for the President of the United States to fantasize about tossing people in jail because they don’t kiss his ass enough for him.

Speaking of trying to jail someone he hates…

Former FBI director James Comey appeared in court today.

Flash News…

Shitshow in One Act:

The Attorney General of Mar-a-Lardo’s Senate hearing boiled down to one clip: a theatrical performance, sold-out for an audience of one—her president.

President Wrong is the Wrongest his been all year…

Bailed out Argentina got a concert!

The concert took place on Monday.

Treasury Suck Up Scott Bessent said to CNBC on Oct. 2nd., that it’s not a cash payment but a swap line.

Show more =’s That is false. They are putting $20B into the Argentinian economy. (that’s ron’s opinion).

Google says the money hasn’t been sent yet…

Florida Man arrested for starting a California fire…

This is an open thread

As I expected today’s shitshow will be a shitshow…

From the Fox News article: Independent journalists who are slated to join the discussion, Fox News Digital learned, include Cam Higby, Jonathon Choe, Andy Ngo, Katie Daviscourt, James Klug, Savannah Hernandez, Nick Shirley, Brandi Kruse and Julio Rojas. 

Journalists is doing a lot of heavy lifting…

About the opinions in this article…

Any opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website or of the other authors/contributors who write for it.

About Tiff 3354 Articles
Member of the Free Press who is politically homeless and a political junkie.