[AFPhys]

I see you aren't willing to press Congress to change the Constitution or the laws that forbid the use of the military in this situation.

I won't vote for your option that the president disobey the law.

[Wallace T.]

There have been precedents for Federal intervention in what usually are state add local matters. During the Pullman Strike in 1894, President Cleveland (who, FWIW, is admired by conservatives as an advocate of the gold standard and Constitutional government) used Federal troops to ensure the delivery of the United States mail. The state and local authorities did not act to suppress the strikers, forcing Cleveland to act. Then there was the use of Federal troops to enforce school integration.

As far as that goes, Lincoln and FDR overstepped their bounds, yet they are considered great Presidents. Had they not acted as they did, slavery would have continued in the South into the 20th Century and German would be the preferred language in Paris, London, and Moscow in the 21st Century. I am sure the Cold Warriors such as the Dulles brothers, Henry Kissinger, William Colby, etc., bent or broke a few legal limits in protecting America's interests overseas. So did Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter in aiding the Nicaraguan Contras. It is hard to argue that riding the world of such enemies of America as Mossadegh in Iran, Allende in Chile, and Ortega in Nicaragua was not in the best interests of our country.

As stated previously, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Better to act than to let thousands of people die needlessly due to ineffective state and local leadership.