Posted on 07/25/2020 8:16:08 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Tell that to B.J. Clinton, Janet Reno, Elián González and the Branch Davidians.
Yes, the world gets to see the madness of Portland, again, for real, in real time, and what happens when the Marx madness that is the demonrat party of today goes the distance.
Check it out: They have arrived! Welcome to their marxist hell ... how do you like it now?
Wouldn’t you like to live there, too? Boy howdy, you betcha! I know I would!
President Donald J. Trump is the only adult in that Portland conversation and the whole world gets to see that, too.
We have an election soon, EricK, and who do you think America will choose?
Someone who will continue to give us over to ideological insanity?
Or someone who can and will continue to Make America Great Again!
See? That wasn’t such a chore now was it?
“There is no police power in the federal Constitution.”
Actually there is. Originally for only 3 crimes. So, Erickson is still an idiot loser.
L
Erickson has been an avid anti-Trumper since 2015.
I don’t think anyone pays attention to him any more. He has absolutely no moral conviction and even less credibility.
Portland Oregon = James Town
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
I wish that more people would read the Constitution so they don’t have to guess what it says.
Here are the two main clauses imo that give the feds various degrees of policing power in the states.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections [emphasis added] and repel Invasions;"
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphasis added]."
The two clauses give the feds different powers to intervene, depending on the motives behind violence imo. Clause 4.4 limits the fed’s powers to being invited to help suppress domestic violence, gang warfare for example.
On the other hand, when you have violent political groups like desperate Democratic Party front-ends Antifa and BLM who are using their violence to effectively flip their fingers at government authority imo, “Orange Man Bad” in this case, Clause 1.8.15 does the following. It gives the feds the power to decide if violence is intended to destabilize the Union, a constitutional no-no, and intervene to suppress such violence without permission from the states if deemed necessary.
Justice Joseph Story had put it this way about that clause.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
"In times of insurrection or invasion, it would be natural and proper, that the militia of a neighbouring state should be marched into another to resist a common enemy, or guard the republic against the violence of a domestic faction or sedition [emphasis added]." — Justice Joseph Story, Acticle I, Section 8, Clause 15, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1195--97
Finally, I’d be concerned about possible abuse of federal powers to suppress violence in renegade states like Washington State, Oregon, NY and others too, if anybody but Trump was president.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats and RINOs home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
Erickson is a prick. And he doesn’t know the law either. The Federal government has arrest powers when rioters attack and damage federal property or harm Federal officers. There are various laws that allow the Federal government to step in.
Erickson was a never Trumper, and when push comes to shove he is a RINO.
There’s no doubt about the president’s legal authority to deploy federal LEOs whether locals like it or not.
There are many fed enforcement agencies. Even federal troops have been used many times without regard to locals, but there are requirements to be met.
The authority is so clearcut that there aren’t even many notable court cases.
FBI, DEA, Forest Service, Protective Services, etc. Dozens of fed agency can enforce federal law outside of fed property.
Thanks for your comments and research. I believe that the provisions of the Constitution you cite were heavily influenced by Shays’ rebellion in 1786. Protest is one thing; anarchy is another. A president has the constitutional power to oppose and deal with rebellion and anarchy, as well as the violence and destruction that they promote.
It is ASININE to let cities burn like this! It is like letting children with major emotional problems destroy things and themselves while innocents suffer greatly. Ultimately,WE pay for ALL of this.
There is a difference between what should be done, and what may be done. I’m not going to address the question of what should be done, in this post, only what can be done.
If I’ve got this, both the states, and the United States, are sovereign. The state has the authority to enforce state law, and the United States has the authority to enforce federal law. The US Government cannot require the states to enforce federal law, but may send law enforcement forces, or the militia, into a state, to enforce federal law itself. When the rights people hold under the United States Constitution, or under federal law, are being violated, the United States has the power to intervene, by force, to protect people’s federally guaranteed rights.
The Federal Government also has to right to enforce state law, but only when requested by the state. The United States can back up a state, but doesn’t have to authority to enforce state law on its own hook.
Protecting federal property, such as preventing rioters from burning down a US courthouse, is within the Federal Government’s purview. The notion that law within a city should break down to the extent that any such thing would be needed, is absurd. It is, however, happening.
Do any of our legal eagles have a correction to this?
I see that Amendment10 explained it first, and better. I salute you.
From Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to ... suppress Insurrections ...”
If the left means to have war let them attack a federal courthouse defended by federal officers. If the cities are left to burn, tax payers who have had nothing to do with it will be asked to rebuild the basic infrastructure.
Erickson always puts his faith forward. For instance, I heard him praise Mike Pence, saying he wishes Pence was President.
Wouldn’t be surprised if given the choose, he would replace Trump with Pence. Why? Because Pence is more Christian, apparently.
Well, what’s so Christian about letting Portland endanger the lives of its citizens.
So Erickson uses Christianity as his way to attack Trump. Meanwhile, with the strong man Trump guarding this nation, Erickson’s policies would likely sink our Christian nation and turn it over to the Deep State.
Erickson knows local politics, but he’s not very savvy about the long game.
Then again, it took an awful long time for Mark Levin to support Trump. Beck even longer.
Police power:
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”
“he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
However, the Federal government is responsible to honor its Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution which guarantees that each state will maintain a republican form of government.
Insurrection, chaos, rebellion, and anarchy are antithetical to the republican form of government.
State and municipal officials have not merely failed to maintain a republican form of government; they are, instead, facilitating insurrection and fomenting chaos.
Therefore, these state and municipal officials are defiantly rebelling against the United States. By aiding and abetting open enemies of the United States, they are guilty of treason.
To use Federal agents in the police function to oppose the insurrectionists is to get the priorities wrong. The first thing to do is to dispatch US Marshals to arrest treasonous mayors, governors, and other rebellious state and municipal officials.
The President not only has the Constitutional authority, but also the responsibility, to restore a republican form of government in these rebellious states.
Of course, the Constitution is a dead letter, so that will not happen.
Lincoln dispatched Grant and Sherman to suppress a Democrat insurrection in 1860. Grant dispatched the US Army and arrested something like 10,000 Democrat terrorists in the Klan in 1870. In the 1950's Eisenhower dispatched the 101st Airborne to quell a Democrat insurrection. Kennedy did likewise in the 1960s.
I doubt Jarod and Ivanka will let Trump do that.
I could not agree more!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.