Pretty sure Kate Brown could muster some serious riot control resources if the “wrong” people were to begin rioting.
a. Trump does not need a Kent State moment
b. Trump is getting good swing votes for needed law and order
Trump is allowing the Democrats to have enough rope to hang themselves, but in places like Portland it’s still not nearly enough.
Great article.
It explains, in detail, how the hands of the NG are tied in Blue Cities (aka “nonpermissive environments”).
They can’t enforce state and local law because the cops and DA won’t cooperate. They can’t shoot them or stick them in camps.
Really, the only option is to remove the State and Local governments, but there is no legal way to do that.
It requires the declaration of a national emergency, and the implementation of the Insurrection/Patriot Acts simultaneously and we are getting the evidence which could provide the conditions which could make this happen.
The answer is pretty straightforward and ignored by Kurt, who should know better. Both the Constitution, Art. IV, s. 4, and the first section of the Insurrection Act, 10 USC 251, only allow for the use of federal forces to suppress a domestic insurrection on application of the state legislature or, if the legislature cannot be convened, the governor. The state legislatures and governors are pointedly withholding their consent.
The Insurrection Act contains two exceptions where federal forces can be used, or state militia can be called into federal service, without the state’s consent. But these exceptions are constitutionally questionable and neither of them apply:
Section 252 allows the use of federal troops or federalized militia when “the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.” Even in the extreme case of Portland, the federal courts are still functioning, so this section doesn’t apply.
Section 253 allows it if the state itself “(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” No states are doing this.
So the answer is not practical, it is legal. The President is not “sending in the troops” because it would violate the constitution and federal law for him to do so. Unlike our prior President, unlike the caricature of this President presented by Democrat propagandists, and contrary to some of his occasional, unfortunate rhetoric, President Trump actually obeys the law and the Constitution.
Everyone is making very good points on here.
Yep. I’m going to save it.
The left doesn’t care about dead bodies.
They get their vote either way.
Most interesting. As a Veteran I fully appreciate and understand everything this ex-Officer wrote. He is obviously been to the Army War College as he has gone into depth the actions that must be taken when sending the troops into actual live, potential combat operations.
He is also absolutely correct in stating the average citizen doesn’t have a clue about what goes on, in the total picture.
And they really don’t need to know. Just accept it is a very complex endeavor that doesn’t happen immediately with the stroke of a pen.