Posted on 07/22/2020 1:36:21 PM PDT by caww
The mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon might not like it, but President Trump has a winning issue with his federal law enforcement deployments.
The simple truth, one that Democratic politicians such as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot need to grasp quickly, is that most people don't want to get shot dead. Their ignorance of that reality, willful or otherwise, reflects a quite stunning failure of political leadership.
The facts are clear. The chaos in Portland is a direct consequence of Mayor Ted Wheeler's appeasement of roving criminals. But rather than confront the destruction of private property and attacks on police officers and city residents, Wheeler is playing to the idiotic Twitter meme that the federal law enforcement officers are actually the Gestapo. In Chicago, Lightfoot is playing the same game.
Emboldened by the understandable reluctance of police officers to confront criminals, understandable in that Democratic mayors and prosecutors are out for badges, gangs are taking advantage of a security vacuum. Like the culprits, the victims are predominantly young black men. We are told that black lives matter, but only, it seems, when those lives are ended by police officers.
Trump has a winning issue....where the metal meets the meat, people want the police to protect them. It may not look nice and often isn't, but the deployment of federal law enforcement officers accomplishes two things. It shows that the federal government takes its duty of public security seriously, and it draws a striking contrast with politicians who would take the very opposite approach, defunding those who are needed to keep us safe.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Go hump someone else’s leg.
L
I’m not too impressed with the constitutional awareness of Trump’s his legal team. Remember, they all went to modern laws schools which deadens your awareness of the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
I think Trump’s advisors and a big part of his problem.
I’m not too impressed with the constitutional awareness of Trump’s legal team. Remember, they all went to modern laws schools which deadens your awareness of the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.
I think Trump’s advisors and a big part of his problem.
Get back to me when you say something on point and coherent.
Ronald Reagan said, “The scariest words in the English language are, ‘Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.”
Guess you must have missed that class.
How about Ben Franklin expressing grave doubts that you can hold on the the Constitutional Republic the Founders gave you.
Guess you missed that class too.
It’s OK, go back to sleep.
Hey Dorkmeister, spare me your idiotic replies and take a flying leap.
Oh really. My Constitution has ONE place that outlines how the feds may own property within a state - Article I, Section 17.
What does yours say?
Dang, you’re like a broken record.
No reason definitely, and no accountability apparently.
Take you non-sequiturs elsewhere.
That’s fine with me, but you know, in a debate the idea is to present rational and supportable arguments for your position.
Of course we have differences of opinion. Nothing wrong with that. But the point is - and IMO the fun - is presenting the supportable rational for one’s position. There’s a possibility of education there.
Well, congratulations Dave. You’ve made to to my “No Fly Zone” where those who insist on bull-headed irrational replies go.
I’ll try not to respond to you again.
Sorry Dave but I’ve got you down as “stubborn as a mule and twice as stupid.”
Bye, bye.
My Constitution -- the U.S. Constitution -- doesn't have a Section 17 in Article I.
Sorry, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
Please post the relevant text here and explain to me how the use of Federal officers to protect a Federal building in Portland (for example) somehow contradicts it.
My god talk about inbred retarded
If your argument begins by questioning the constitutionality of an act passed in 1807, written by people that had created the Constitution (1787) twenty years before, I must reject your premise.
You’re perfectly able to read the text of Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17. The American People NEED to read their Constitution which they generally never do.
What is the federal building doing in Portland? Is it a “fort, magazine, arsenal, dock-yard, or some other needful [generally defense-related] building”?
Was the land it sits on purchased from Oregon?
Was the purchase by consent of the Oregon state legislature?
Almost certainly the answer to all three questions is, “NO”.
So such federal land grabs around the country absolutely contradicts and violates the Constitution.
So what? Does anyone care? They will when this basic totalitarian government is manned by the wrong guy and suddenly turns on you, your possessions, and your beloved freedom.
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings ...
Question #1 -- Where does it say that "other needful buildings" includes only defense-related properties?
Now lets look at Article III of the U.S. Constitution ...
Section 1:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2:
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
So Congress has the authority to establish Federal courts, and any trial held in a Federal matter MUST be held in the state where the crime has been committed.
Question #2 -- Where the hell is a Federal court in any given state supposed to be located, if the Federal government can only own property in a state for military facilities?
The writers of the Insurrection Act of 1807 isn’t the issue. It is who ratified it (the 1807 Congress) that matters. But even them, you’ve missed the point of whether the Act is constitutional.
What about my rationale? Why don’t you address that?
1. Do you know the answer to either of these questions, or are you just guessing when you say "NO?"
2. Before statehood, Oregon was established as a Territory of the U.S. through an act of Congress in 1848. I think a better question might be: "Did the State of Oregon purchase ANYTHING from the Federal government after it was admitted into the Union in 1859?"
Great questions oh Pissed-Off One.
Who are pissed at - the feds who would love to take your money and your freedom given half the chance or someone who stands against federal tyranny (tyranny=unconstitutional, and thus, illegal acts).
People like you make no sense - you hate those who fight for your freedom? Do you even know what freedom is? Hint: political freedom is the absence of government. Who needs that? Well anyone who has spent time just about anywhere else in the world will tell you it means a lot - may have died for just that - freedom from government.
That’s the real point here. The side issue is addressing your particular challenges.
Q - “Where does it say that “other needful buildings” includes only defense-related properties?” A - it is inferred in the context.
Q - Where the hell is a Federal court in any given state supposed to be located, if the Federal government can only own property in a state for military facilities? A- Dunno. Good point. Maybe that would be an exception to be included in “needful buildings”.
Now let me ask you a question. Tell me how much of “National Parks” and massive federal land holdings around the country falls under the clauses we’ve both cited and tell me how many of those land holdings were “purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state” wherein is the land the feds now possess?
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.