Florida Concealed Carry banner

21 - 40 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,369 Posts
If only this were so easy. The “insurrection act” came from the “Calling forth act” in the 1780s I believe. The Calling forth act came after something referred to as the Shay rebellion. A bunch of folks led by a guy name Shay refused to pay their taxes and generally wreaked havoc locally. Before the Calling forth act could be used some rich guys hired some rent a cops of sorts. They apparently kicked the crap out of everybody and the insurrection was stopped.

The US Army discussed amending the insurrection act in 1971 to give a broader ability to react to domestic issues but that failed. The insurrection act was amended by the “enforcement act“ in 2006 or so as a direct result of the New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina debate when the governor did not want any federal help.

The enforcement act was repealed after so many governors complained. The part they didn’t like was the ability of the feds to send in troops when the governor didn’t want them.

The insurrection act has been used a few times like mentioned above by President Kennedy. It was used basically to enforce federal court orders regarding desegregation and the subsequent race riots.

The Posse Comitatus act prohibits the use of federal troops to enforce local laws. I think that’s what caused Mark Esper our secretary of defense to risk Trump firing him when he took a strong stand that our military should never be used against our own population. That was significant because Esper was known as a yes man and his nickname in government circles was “Mark Yesper“

Judge Napolitano is correct that the actions of the feds in Portland was unconstitutional. There is a pending lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Oregon I believe and it includes a description of what happened to one of the persons seized by the feds. The guy was reported to have been walking home in the wee hours after having demonstrated. He saw guys jump out of a mini van and come running at him in military uniforms, heavily armed. He testified that he didn’t know if they were “right wingers“ or military or law-enforcement since many times they all wear the same outfits.

The guys snatched him up, refused to identify themselves, cuffed him and threw him in the back of the minivan. He continued to ask who they were and they continued to refuse. They read him his Miranda rights and attempted to question him. He refused and asked for a lawyer and was denied and he was held in a cell in the federal courthouse. After a while, they released him with no explanation, no paperwork or any sort of written explanation of what they did or why they had grabbed him.

I’m about as pro law-enforcement as they come but that was just wrong. I think it’s very basic and constitutionally guaranteed that you have a right to know who you’re being grabbed by. That’s why police officers wear badges and have badge numbers as well as names on their uniforms. Anonymity breeds additional violence both on the part of the enforcer and rioters or demonstrators.
I seems that I agree with several people here including Shark.
As to the argument of "would you want a liberal president to do this?",neither a conservative nor liberal president would ever do this. This is very simply a "Trump" issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,342 Posts
I seems that I agree with several people here including Shark.
As to the argument of "would you want a liberal president to do this?",neither a conservative nor liberal president would ever do this. This is very simply a "Trump" issue.
Really? Did you say the same thing when FDR or JFK did it?
Because they did you know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeerHunter

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,629 Posts
Really? Did you say the same thing when FDR or JFK did it?
Because they did you know?
This precisely! However, liberals love to look the other way when it's the actions of their guy (or the Hildebeast).
 
  • Like
Reactions: bttbbob

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
I’m not sure the liberals want Trump to have more power, I think the position is that he tries to exceed the power he actually has.
Well, that's the inherent contradiction in their philosophy. If he were a liberal, they would want him to have, and exercise, MORE power, not less. That he is NOT the guy that they trust, puts them in the absurd position of wishing that he had less power, though they generally want the president to have more power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
Really? Did you say the same thing when FDR or JFK did it? Because they did you know?
Perfect example of what I was talking about. FDR or JFK the president? Give them all the power they can use and more. Donald Trump? OOOH! Suddenly he has too much power. Suddenly, don't want him to have that sort of authority.

It is patently absurd, and irrational, to think that you can switch the authority on and off, depending on whether or not you happen to trust the guy in the White House. But that is the absurd irrationality of the liberal philosophy.

I don't want ANY of them to have that kind of power, because I know that some day someone will be in there that I absolutely do not trust!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,899 Posts
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It does seem the presidential power is never questioned if the current president is “your guy” so to speak.

The insurrection act has been used a number of times and indeed by FDR and JFK. It requires a proclamation before it is instituted but, the real issue seems to be the optics of using American troops against Americans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,342 Posts
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It does seem the presidential power is never questioned if the current president is “your guy” so to speak.

The insurrection act has been used a number of times and indeed by FDR and JFK. It requires a proclamation before it is instituted but, the real issue seems to be the optics of using American troops against Americans.
They aren’t using troops although they could. They are officers of DHS and Border Patrol. Big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C&R

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,629 Posts
Some info on what's going on in Portland from a prominent YouTuber, who's hometown is Portland. I've watched his channel off and on for years and I trust him to be a rational, truthful person:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,629 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,046 Posts
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It does seem the presidential power is never questioned if the current president is “your guy” so to speak.

The insurrection act has been used a number of times and indeed by FDR and JFK. It requires a proclamation before it is instituted but, the real issue seems to be the optics of using American troops against Americans.
He is not using troops. He is using federal civilian law enforcement officers to protect federal property paid for by taxpayers. He would be negligent by not doing so. Unlike JFK, he is NOT sending military troops, i.e., National Guard. Huge difference
 
  • Like
Reactions: deadeyedick and C&R

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,899 Posts
Good morning, that was the point I was making. To send troops he needs to do proclamation. To my knowledge he hasn’t done a proclamation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Well... The Constitution does not grant any authority to the federal government to go into any city or state and enforce its local laws. Of course, they do have the authority to protect federal property, but it's pretty obvious that their actions have gone way beyond just that. There are laws that allow the federal government to assist local law enforcement, when they have been asked to do so. In this case, they have not.

So, I think there is a lot of grey area here. I support Trump's decision to send federal agents into the area, but I think they need to tread EXTREMELY carefully in terms of the actions that they take.

You may feel sorry for the people of Portland, who are the victims of the choice that their elected leaders made when those leaders told the police to stand down. I certainly do. But THEY elected those people. THEY made the choice to put these decisions into the hands of those people. Sometimes you just have to cope with the bad choices that you have made. One hopes that, come the next election, they will have the sense to make better choices!
I stand with you! When elected officials DON'T PROTECT their citizens, then the Fed has to step up! Remember what Isis did in the Middle East?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
No offense, but you are missing the point. If we grant the president the authority to send in federal agents to enforce local laws, without extremely strict and clearly spelled-out limitations on when it is allowed, then you invite some future president to send them in when YOU do not believe that it is justified.

Would you really have been happier if Obama had had the authority to send agents into Florida because he decided that our local police forces were not enforcing our gun laws strictly enough? What if Hillary had been elected in 2016? Would you want HER to have that authority? Again, I'm pretty sure the answer would be "no."

The real point being that it is pretty stupid to give power and authority to a president that you trust, that you wouldn't give to a president that you DON'T trust. Because, sooner or later, you're going to have one there that you don't trust.

Frankly, this is the problem that the liberals have right now. Their basic political philosophy is that Donald Trump does not have enough power, authority, and control. They want the federal government to have more of that, but they stupidly never thought about the plain, inescapable fact that eventually someone would be elected president that they didn't trust with all that power. So for the last 3+ years their heads have been exploding. And the fact is that some day a president will be elected that the liberals think is much, MUCH worse than Trump. They will be longing for the days when all they had to worry about was Trump. Will they be smart enough in the next few decades to realize that when THAT guy comes along, they want his power and authority to be strictly limited? Probably not.

Likewise, a president will eventually come along who will make the conservatives wish that Barak Obama was all they had to worry about; that will make Obama look like a very moderate centrist. How much authority do you want THAT guy to have? My answer is, precious damned little!

Hence the restriction on federal agents being used to enforce local laws. A very good restriction, that exists for a very good reason, and that we should all be very happy about.
Ok then, what does the DEA and ICE, just to name a few, do in cities across the nation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,899 Posts
Morning Spyguy

DEA and ICE have jurisdiction over federal crimes. They deal with, for instance, drug smuggling which is a federal charge. DEA can’t arrest you for shoplifting for instance. It’s all jurisdictional. As an example, when I was a criminal investigator at Fort Benning we had jurisdiction over military members on base and off base. The base itself was, of course, federal jurisdiction. If a soldier and his cousin that was not in the military committed an armed robbery, I could arrest the soldier but had to hold the civilian for the FBI because they have jurisdiction over civilians committing crime on federal property.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
Yeah, what Shark said. To make it real simple, federal agents enforce federal laws; they do NOT enforce local laws.

That said, most of what the rioters are doing is violating local laws. Things like disturbing the peace, robbery, vandalism, looting, assault, and so on are all local laws. It is up to the local police to enforce those things.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,629 Posts
Yeah, what Shark said. To make it real simple, federal agents enforce federal laws; they do NOT enforce local laws.

That said, most of what the rioters are doing is violating local laws. Things like disturbing the peace, robbery, vandalism, looting, assault, and so on are all local laws. It is up to the local police to enforce those things.
Unless they are committing "robbery, vandalism, looting, assault," etc. of federal property or on federal employees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,412 Posts
Unless they are committing "robbery, vandalism, looting, assault, etc. of federal property or on federal employees.
That’s the way I see it. They’re presence is to protect federal facilities and personnel IMHO.

Now, that being said, the local population and leadership doesn’t want them there. For reasons that escape me, they’re ok with the anarchy. As far as I’m concerned, they should just pull all federal employees and agents, fry any servers and networks and bail. Let the liberal sheethole burn.

Naturally, simultaneously freeze any and all federal money going to the city, including handouts (stimulus checks, disability social security, etc.) and refuse any aid of any kind when requested. As I say, let ‘em burn.

Probably not constitutional, but perhaps roadblocks surrounding the joint turning back the scum once food is gone and nothing left to burn. Can’t have them infecting cities with any signs of intelligent life.

But that’s just me. Scroom!
 
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
Top