Posted on 07/21/2020 7:30:01 AM PDT by hapnHal
When protests spread across the US following the death of George Floyd, President Trump threatened to send in the army.
President Trump said he had the power to send in the military if cities and states failed to solve the problem. Protests have continued in Portland, Oregon, for more than 50 days - and the city's mayor says there are "dozens, if not hundreds, of federal troops" deployed there who aren't welcome.
President Trump has responded: "Well, it depends on what your definition of 'troops' is... we're sending law enforcement."Trump's crackdown on Portland protests explained. The agents belong to a new force created by the president to protect federal property, whose personnel are drawn from different federal agencies.
But state governors are questioning if the federal government has the authority to send in troops without their permission.Can the president deploy troops?Yes, he can under certain circumstances. The federal government has deployed thousands of troops from the National Guard, a reserve force for the US Army, to quell protests
But a US law passed in the 19th Century lays out circumstances when the government in Washington DC can intervene without state authorisation.
The Insurrection Act says the approval of governors isn't required when the president determines the situation in a state makes it impossible to enforce US laws, or when citizens' rights are threatened.The law was passed in 1807 to allow the president to call out a militia to protect against "hostile incursions of the Indians".
Another law passed in 1878 requires congressional authorisation for domestic military use, the Insurrection Act was sufficient legal authority on its own for the president to deploy the army.
Robert Chesney, a University of Texas law professor, "is that it is the president's determination to make; the governors do not have to request his help.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
That ought to be sufficient for sending in Federal Troops.
Johnson sent in the troops to protect protesters from their governor - George Wallace.
It’s completely legal if the drivers, business and building owners are not being protected by their state and local government.
I would think that protecting a Federal Courthouse is the responsibility of the a Federal Government. I don’t give a sh!t about the rest of Portland.
I spent a few days there several years ago. The state is beautiful, but that was an odd town to this East Coaster. And I live near Amherst MA...weirdo central in MA.
It's being done so that if the government ‘interferes’ with it, Liberals can claim their rights are being denied and the Democratic party is being dis served.
Of course, none of that is conceivable without the wholesale, criminal complicity of the MSM.
It has to be stopped or we are going to face all-out anarchy and possibly invasion by one or a consortium of enemies who want to wipe us out.
The media sure got their marching orders on not using the word "riots...
Protecting Federal property would be absolutely legal.
Yes. Send the federal forces to crush the neo-neo-hippies. It’s time to settle an old score. 1968 reeked.
If not, then the US Marshals, FBI, ATF, CBP, and plenty of country-wide policing entities need to be disbanded.
In desegregation activities, federal troops, regulars, were used in Mississippi and Arkansas. This was over strenuous objections from the states. Remember governors Wallace and Barnett?
How do other countries handle violent protesters? People want America back to normal.
Ahh, hell, what am I saying, they are political riot rallies. Local party leaders are upset that their voters are being arrested.
Leftist BBC drivel.
The Insurrection Act has nothing to do with federal law enforcement enforcing federal law.
It is against federal law to damage, deface, or destroy federal property.
Federal officers have the legal power, and duty, to enforce that federal law.
The law would not mean much if people were allowed to attack federal officers and damage federal property if federal officers did not have the authority to enforce it.
This has nothing to do with the insurrection act.
It has everything to do with enforcing the law and maintaining order on federal property.
Do park police/rangers have the authority to prevent people from throwing garbage into “Old faithful” in Yellowstone Park?
Of course they do.
They also have the authority to stop the destruction of a federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, perhaps more.
The Constitution specifically mentions federal courts. It does not mention federal parks.
LEO are not “troops”, but I wouldn’t expect the low-IQ leftist activists at the BBC to know that.
No!
By invitation of the governor ONLY!
Feds have the authority and duty to defend federal assets and personnel. That is all.
Meanwhile, let them eat each other.
The president can easily appeal to the federal contract with the states when asked why he isn’t doing anything to stop the riots. If the states won’t ask for help, he can do nothing beyond the defense of federal assets and personnel.
State residents are not only citizens of a state but citizens of the United States. Therefore, a clear federal role/responsibility exists to protect all U.S. citizens’ civil rights.
I really don’t think it is a good idea for the BBC to try and explain American law to the British...
Officers of the Federal Protective service are allowed to make arrest to protect Federal property. Other Federal Agents do not have the authority to do so unless they are deputized. Agents being deployed to these areas are being deputized so that they can make arrest.
Well thanks to the Patriot Act almost any form of “enforcement” the fed chooses to do is legal. The real question is SHOULD it be. And I don’t think it should. There used to be very strict limitations on how much the fed could be deployed against the citizens. And disappearing people always a bad thing.
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.