Well, howdy there, Internet people, it's Bell again. So today, we're going to talk about

Trump losing in Portland again and orders. U.S. District Judge Karen Emmergut extended her order

blocking deployment of National Guard troops in Portland for another 14 days.

This gives more time for legal challenges to play out. The case is currently expected to go to trial

on October 29th. A three-judge panel with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is still weighing

whether Trump should be

blocked as well. They could effectively end the judge's order. Now, as time goes on, and the

status remains relatively unchanged and relatively calm, it becomes harder to cast the situation

as something akin to an emergency, requiring special

emergency moves. Let's be real. If what Trump was saying was true about war-torn Portland,

it would be ashes by now. But it's not. Outside of a one-block area, it's pretty calm. But this coming back into the news

cycle gives us a chance to talk about some questions that came up a lot after the general's

clip stressing lawful orders went viral. The question is, who determines an order is unlawful? I'm sure there

are going to be a whole genre of LawTube videos about this eventually. So, rather than rehash all

of the stuff they'll probably cover better, we're going to go over the practical application. Who determines an order

is unlawful? In short, a military judge. Long after the order was given and either obeyed or

disobeyed. If a service member disobeyed an order, even if they're correct, they might have to sit in a cell for a lengthy period until a judge determines, hey, yes, it was an unlawful order.

There's a whole bunch of legal, if this, than that. But once it's all charted, orders are assumed by service members to be lawful, unless it is

manifestly unlawful. What's that mean in normal person speak? The order is unlawful, and there is

zero nuance, and I mean none. The requirement to disobey unlawful orders, and it is a requirement, isn't there so a junior

enlisted soldier has to debate the constitutionality of deploying to an American city through the lens

of the Insurrection Act of 1807. It's there, so if they're on the street and they're ordered to open fire on a crowd of unarmed

...