LIVE THREAD: All hell is breaking loose across America Weekend Thread..Last Part

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks for your kind wishes @Cyber Liberty.

I think what's (perhaps) different about my suggestion is that it states in bureaucratic-sounding terms "If you laser a Federal facility tonight, or if you're even standing near someone who does, you are likely to be shot dead in the street, and if you do happen to survive that we're putting a mint on your pillow at the nearest Federal penitentiary."  And a bit less provocatively, it pretty much dares state and local officials to resist.

Hard for me to believe I'm siding with the Feds, it's not my normal posture.  But there *are* Delegated Powers, and just as the Reserved Powers must be respected, so must the Delegated Powers be respected as well.

I'm not quite to the point of shooting the rioters just yet, but they're doing everything they can to push me in that direction.  And I can't believe I have to side with the Feds as well!  I'm a "Won't Comply" sort of fellow, usually, but that's not to say there aren't constitutionally Delegated Powers that must be respected if we are to be a nation of Laws, and not Men. 

If I need an FCC license to operate a radio transmitter, for example, then it's off to the Feds I go to get one.  No problem, it's been the law since 1934.

[sneakypete]

Ya right @sneakypete

 I never said that it was ALL Trump's fault only that he had ample opportunity when this chaos first began to act and he didn't - now the country is paying the price.  Should I remind you that he publicly claimed that he was going to stop the chaos a long time ago -- right around the time that the anarchists tore down the barricades around the WH and the President took a walk across the street to St. John's .... now the chaos has spread and things are out of control....bigly. 

AND........there you are,right there is your post,claiming it is Trump's fault because he hasn't stopped what the DNC in concert with their RINO flunkies put into motion by sending in the army and gunning down rioters and other leftist fools.

Isn't it time for you to put your Big Girl Panties on and think about what the media reaction would have been world-wide IF he had done what you and many wished?

Is there ANY doubt in your mind impeachment proceedings would have began,and chances are he would have been impeached?

PLEASE tell us all how that would have helped manners in ANY respect. I am all ears.

He is doing what he MUST do and what is within the law for him to do by sending in federal agents to protect federal property.

If the Dims are foolish enough to move to open rebellion and a call to overthrow the government,THEN he will be justified to send in troops. I have very little doubt that is where we will be right before the election. If nothing else,they can use that for a "justification" to postpone the elections. Hell,that might even be their plan. Even they know they can't win an election without the mail-in balloting and the cheating it affords them.

You're also assuming that this election is going to make a difference -- I'm not.

 

Ok,you have given up. So why are you hear bitching at those of us who haven't?

The demise of the country may possibly happen at a slower rate under Trump than Biden and the socialists, but the end result is going to be the same.

Oh,woe is me!

ALL IS LOST!

May I suggest suicide as a possible option?

Stop with the if you don't vote for Trump you must be a DEM b.s.  IF Trump isn't going to take this country in a more positive direction -- then you are correct I won't be voting for him.  I will not be voting period other than I might vote for a couple of conservatives down ballot.
 

Well,after all,it's ALL about YOU,right?

[Right_in_Virginia]

That's a stretch don't you think, since presidents have been using the Insurrection Act since 1807 and 'W' extended the president's power under this Act?  So to rule it unconstitutional, would mean that Jefferson, Jackson, Hayes, Grant, Cleveland, Wilson, Hoover, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Bush all acted unconstitutionally.  I don't think so.

I'm going to try one more time.   First ... if the use of the insurrection Act goes through the courts ... as it will today @libertybele it will end up with the Supremes who will be given the opportunity to rule on its constitutionality and if that passes --- its application.  I would prefer John Roberts, based on his recent voting record, not be give a chance to cast the deciding vote.

As for using the act ...here's its recent history (from 1967).  I want you to note that in each case, the State requested the Federal assistance.  This is one hell of a precedent supporting the "other" side should the continued use and application of the Act hit the courts:

Jul 1967   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes*      Detroit, Michigan
Apr1968   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes*      Washington, D.C.
Apr1968   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes*      Baltimore, Maryland
Apr1968   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes*      Chicago, Illinois
Sep1989   George H. W. Bush    Yes*      Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands
May1992   George H. W. Bush    Yes*      Los Angeles County, California

* State Request for Assistance

As for Dubya ... In 2006, he considered intervening in Louisiana's response to Hurricane Katrina  -- despite the refusal from Louisiana's governor, but this was inconsistent with past precedent, politically difficult, and potentially unconstitutional. A provision of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, added by an unidentified sponsor, amended the Insurrection act to permit military intervention without state consent, in case of an emergency that hindered the enforcement of laws. Dubya signed this amendment into law, but all fifty state governors issued a joint statement against it, and the changes were repealed in January 2008.

The precedent from 1967 through its last use in 1992 stands today:  Activation of Federal forces under the Insurrection Act requires a request for assistance from the affected State.

[sneakypete]

Can we quit blaming the President for the current execution of a well organized and widespread Communist Plot?
Coming just after a coup attempt by a Communist infiltrated political Party
On the heels and maybe even in the midst of a viral Pandemic created in a Communist Lab,
let out by a Communist country,
Lied about by that same Communist Country and the "Health Organization" of a largely Communist Global organization.

There is one word which repeats there, which is the unifying thread through these events.

The setup the Communists are looking for is a Rematch of the streets of Berlin, playing Communists vs Fascists, and even though there are no fascists, they are trying to build the case to call someone one. Don't play into that.

The time will come to round up and deal with the lawbreakers and their enablers.
For now, they expose themselves and justify the charges which will be brought in the future. As they grw bold, more can see them for who they are.

@Smokin Joe

BINGO!

Not that  I am the vengeful type,mind you.

[libertybele]

AND........there you are,right there is your post,claiming it is Trump's fault because he hasn't stopped what the DNC in concert with their RINO flunkies put into motion by sending in the army and gunning down rioters and other leftist fools.

Isn't it time for you to put your Big Girl Panties on and think about what the media reaction would have been world-wide IF he had done what you and many wished?

Is there ANY doubt in your mind impeachment proceedings would have began,and chances are he would have been impeached?

PLEASE tell us all how that would have helped manners in ANY respect. I am all ears.

He is doing what he MUST do and what is within the law for him to do by sending in federal agents to protect federal property.

If the Dims are foolish enough to move to open rebellion and a call to overthrow the government,THEN he will be justified to send in troops. I have very little doubt that is where we will be right before the election. If nothing else,they can use that for a "justification" to postpone the elections. Hell,that might even be their plan. Even they know they can't win an election without the mail-in balloting and the cheating it affords them.

 

Ok,you have given up. So why are you hear bitching at those of us who haven't?

Oh,woe is me!

ALL IS LOST!

May I suggest suicide as a possible option?


Well,after all,it's ALL about YOU,right?

Suggesting to someone suicide is really over the top.  I shouldn't even dignify your post with a response, but try putting your Big Boy Pants on and read the Insurrection Act -- which the President has full authority to use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

[Cyber Liberty]

No. Under the Insurrection Act they do not have to be asked. 

In 2016, Public Law 114-328 was amended to include Guam and the US Virgin Islands under Ch. 13 jurisdiction. §252: "Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority" currently reads:

    Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

While I heard an assertion the Insurrection Act will be invoked, I have not heard for a fact it's actually been done.   

From what I can see, your primary objection has been a threat has been issued, and not followed up on.  It's a good point, but it begs the question, "When is it appropriate to do so?  Is there sufficient public demand?"  That second question is very difficult to answer, because the press is doing its level best to undermine any attempts for the public to demonstrate their wishes on the subject. 

[sneakypete]

Paging Jerry Nadler, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

@Right_in_Virginia

I can maybe see Jabba the Nadler picking up a BLACK courtesy phone,but never a white one. There might be someone around with a camera or video recorder.

[libertybele]

While I heard an assertion the Insurrection Act will be invoked, I have not heard for a fact it's actually been done.   

From what I can see, your primary objection has been a threat has been issued, and not followed up on.  It's a good point, but it begs the question, "When is it appropriate to do so?  Is there sufficient public demand?"  That second question is very difficult to answer, because the press is doing its level best to undermine any attempts for the public to demonstrate their wishes on the subject.

I gave you that information (in bold highlights above) and IF you click on the link and scroll down you will see a list of presidents who have invoked the Insurrection Act throughout history.  Who in the heck cares about public demand for crying out loud; our country is being destroyed and cities are burning.  Seriously?

[sneakypete]

@Right_in_Virginia

Federal officers would be entirely justified to have police snipers take out anyone pointing a lazer in their direction.

Self-defense.

[Cyber Liberty]

I gave you that information (in bold highlights above) and IF you click on the link and scroll down you will see a list of presidents who have invoked the Insurrection Act throughout history.  Who in the heck cares about public demand for crying out loud; our country is being destroyed and cities are burning.  Seriously?

I saw, I clicked and I scrolled.  It doesn't answer the question "Did Trump 'Invoke' the law?"  I don't know that he did, or if it's even required.

And my point stands:  I think you are premature in demanding casualties for the evening news.  That is in no way to be construed it's not ever going to be mature, it's more of a question of "when" than "if."

[libertybele]

I'm going to try one more time.   First ... if the use of the insurrection Act goes through the courts ... as it will today @libertybele it will end up with the Supremes who will be given the opportunity to rule on it's constitutionality and if that passes --- it's application.  I would prefer John Roberts, based on his recent voting record, not be give an chance to cast the deciding vote.

As for using the act ...here's it's recent history (from 1967).  I want you to note that in each case, the State requested the Federal assistance.  This is one hell of a precedent supporting the "other" side should the continued use and application hit the courts:

Date      President      State      Locale
               Request

Jul 24, 1967   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes      Detroit, Michigan
Apr  5, 1968   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes      Washington, D.C.
Apr 7, 1968   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes      Baltimore, Maryland
Apr 7, 1968   Lyndon B. Johnson   Yes      Chicago, Illinois
Sep 20, 1989   George H. W. Bush   Yes      Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands
May 1, 1992   George H. W. Bush   Yes      Los Angeles County, California

Yes, I'll try one more time .... What you seem to be conveniently omitting is that several presidents went in without being asked.  Trump needs to grow a pair right now.  Our Republic IS being destroyed.

Again... Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Again -- going to court would mean that ALL the past presidents that have envoked the Insurrection Act, did so unconstitutionally.  Including DEM presidents.  I don't think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

[sneakypete]

   Mayors in the worst Hellholes are threatening to arrest Federal Agents exercising their legal authority, under constitutional orders.  The Mayors will fail if any of their threats reach realization.

@Cyber Liberty

If the law is followed,they will also be put on trial for treason,and hanged if found guilty.

I will happily buy and donate the rope.

Maybe somebody needs to whisper this into their tiny little shell-like ears?

[libertybele]

I saw, I clicked and I scrolled.  It doesn't answer the question "Did Trump 'Invoke' the law?"  I don't know that he did, or if it's even required.

And my point stands:  I think you are premature in demanding casualties for the evening news.  That is in no way to be construed it's not ever going to be mature, it's more of a question of "when" than "if."

Ok ... I misunderstood.  I do not know if he has or hasn't. I'm assuming, based on the continued mayhem that he has not OR has not utilized his authority to the fullest.

Just a thought -- regardless of who is elected, do you really think that after the election this crap will stop?  Do you think Biden or whoever fills his spot is just going to let this continue or will they quiet things just as other presidents have or maybe even allow U.N. troops in to help.?  Gee -- the DEMS come in a save the day?? 

Trump has the authority.  He needs to use it.  He stops the rioting and attack on our country = hero to his voting base and my guess is other voters are waiting for him to do something.

[sneakypete]

Suggesting to someone suicide is really over the top.

@libertybele

Why? Seems entirely reasonable for someone with your loser mindset.

I shouldn't even dignify your post with a response, but try putting your Big Boy Pants on and read the Insurrection Act -- which the President has full authority to use.

WHERE does it state he has the authority to act unilaterally,without even the permission of the local or state authorities,never mind written requests.

[sneakypete]

I gave you that information (in bold highlights above) and IF you click on the link and scroll down you will see a list of presidents who have invoked the Insurrection Act throughout history. Who in the heck cares about public demand for crying out loud; our country is being destroyed and cities are burning.  Seriously?

@libertybele

The state and local authorities,and the elected officials that represent them in the US Senate and Congress?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes, I'll try one more time .... What you seem to be conveniently omitting is that several presidents went in without being asked.  Trump needs to grow a pair right now.  Our Republic IS being destroyed.

Again... Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Again -- going to court would mean that ALL the past presidents that have envoked the Insurrection Act, did so unconstitutionally.  Including DEM presidents.  I don't think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

In 2006, Dubya considered intervening in Louisiana's response to Hurricane Katrina  -- despite the refusal from Louisiana's governor, but this was inconsistent with past precedent, politically difficult, and potentially unconstitutional. A provision of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended the insurrection act to permit military intervention without state consent, in case of an emergency that hindered the enforcement of laws.

Dubya signed this amendment into law, but all fifty state governors issued a joint statement against it, and the changes were repealed in January 2008.

So not only does the precedent from 1967 through its last use in 1992 stands today:  Activation of Federal forces under the Insurrection Act requires a request for assistance from the affected State --- add to this precedent the objection in 2008 from all 50 states to any changes to the application of the Insurrection Act and the repeal of the Amendment attempting to do just that.

@libertybele  Today's courts are more likely to abolish the Insurrection Act than uphold it. It's a good idea to meet history where you are, not where you wish you were when trying to revise existing law.

[libertybele]

@libertybele

Why? Seems entirely reasonable for someone with your loser mindset.
 
WHERE does it state he has the authority to act unilaterally,without even the permission of the local or state authorities,never mind written requests.

Now you are making personal attacks @sneakypete   Show some intelligence and argue with something of substance and back it up with some fact.

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.


Maybe you actually need to read the contents of the link provided, either that or reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.  Normally, I would remain civil, but you started the mud slinging.  Also if you scroll down and open your eyes you will note a couple of presidents utilized this Act without being asked by the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

I can maybe see Jabba the Nadler picking up a BLACK courtesy phone,but never a white one. There might be someone around with a camera or video recorder.

'

Good points @sneakypete

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

Federal officers would be entirely justified to have police snipers take out anyone pointing a lazer in their direction.

Self-defense.

Politically inadvisable @sneakypete   And damn it to hell, this counts, too.

[HoustonSam]

In 2006, Dubya considered intervening in Louisiana's response to Hurricane Katrina  -- despite the refusal from Louisiana's governor, but this was inconsistent with past precedent, politically difficult, and potentially unconstitutional. A provision of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended the insurrection act to permit military intervention without state consent, in case of an emergency that hindered the enforcement of laws.

Dubya signed this amendment into law, but all fifty state governors issued a joint statement against it, and the changes were repealed in January 2008.

So not only does the precedent from 1967 through its last use in 1992 stands today:  Activation of Federal forces under the Insurrection Act requires a request for assistance from the affected State --- add to this precedent the objection in 2008 from all 50 states to any changes to the application of the Insurrection Act and the repeal of the Amendment attempting to do just that.

@libertybele  Today's courts are more likely to abolish the Insurrection Act than uphold it. It's a good idea to meet history where you are, not where you want to when trying to revise existing law.

Much respect for your analysis here @Right_in_Virginia.  I did not know these facts, and your interpretation is very persuasive to me.

[libertybele]

In 2006, Dubya considered intervening in Louisiana's response to Hurricane Katrina  -- despite the refusal from Louisiana's governor, but this was inconsistent with past precedent, politically difficult, and potentially unconstitutional. A provision of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended the insurrection act to permit military intervention without state consent, in case of an emergency that hindered the enforcement of laws.

Dubya signed this amendment into law, but all fifty state governors issued a joint statement against it, and the changes were repealed in January 2008.

So not only does the precedent from 1967 through its last use in 1992 stands today:  Activation of Federal forces under the Insurrection Act requires a request for assistance from the affected State --- add to this precedent the objection in 2008 from all 50 states to any changes to the application of the Insurrection Act and the repeal of the Amendment attempting to do just that.

@libertybele  Today's courts are more likely to abolish the Insurrection Act than uphold it. It's a good idea to meet history where you are, not where you want to when trying to revise existing law.

Yes, @Right_in_Virginia  I realize the situation with 'W' -- but the Insurrection Act still stands.  It was NOT rejected.

 The chief clause of the Insurrection Act, in its original 1807 verbiage (which has been thoroughly updated since to reflect modern legalese), reads:[6]

    An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.[7][8]

In 2016, Public Law 114-328 was amended to include Guam and the US Virgin Islands under Ch. 13 jurisdiction. §252: "Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority" currently reads:

    Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.[9][6]


IMHO that is why the GOP is in the mess that they are in -- they continue to kowtow to the DEMS because they FEAR them.  Now is NOT the time to be fearful.  Without a doubt Trump is normally a fighter, normally one step ahead of the opposition and he has more backbone than any president that I can recall in my lifetime -- I'm surprised at his inaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes, @Right_in_Virginia  I realize the situation with 'W' -- but the Insurrection Act still stands.   

Of course it still stands @libertybele   ... but the Act is now hostage to the last 53 years of precedent requiring the State to request Federal assistance.  This precedent is further strengthened by the repeal of the amendment to the Act attempting to change this..

If you pull back just a bit, this precedent is actually in line with Federalism and State's Rights.  This is not a bad outcome, IMO.

As long as Federal property is protected by the Feds, citizens get to decide how far down a rat hole they want to journey before demanding their governors ask for help.  The Feds will be there if and when they do.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thank you @HoustonSam

[Bigun]

I'm not quite to the point of shooting the rioters just yet, but they're doing everything they can to push me in that direction.  And I can't believe I have to side with the Feds as well!  I'm a "Won't Comply" sort of fellow, usually, but that's not to say there aren't constitutionally Delegated Powers that must be respected if we are to be a nation of Laws, and not Men. 

If I need an FCC license to operate a radio transmitter, for example, then it's off to the Feds I go to get one.  No problem, it's been the law since 1934.

How about some lasers of our own set up and programed to return fire to any incoming laser detected. Would that be ok with you?

[Cyber Liberty]

Ok ... I misunderstood.  I do not know if he has or hasn't. I'm assuming, based on the continued mayhem that he has not OR has not utilized his authority to the fullest.

Just a thought -- regardless of who is elected, do you really think that after the election this crap will stop?  Do you think Biden or whoever fills his spot is just going to let this continue or will they quiet things just as other presidents have or maybe even allow U.N. troops in to help.?  Gee -- the DEMS come in a save the day?? 

Trump has the authority.  He needs to use it.  He stops the rioting and attack on our country = hero to his voting base and my guess is other voters are waiting for him to do something.

It will be before the election, if it has to happen.  I have no doubt he has the authority, but I also know in the current political climate, he has to be deliberate in its application.  Why do you think they're rioting now?  It's because they know Trump will have difficulty taking the initiative because there are 50 lawsuits waiting, with 50 willing Judges to pull the rug out from under him, no matter what he does in this regard.   Add to that the guaranteed Impeachment to come, even if it's a week before the election.  We have plenty of weak-kneed Republican Senators to convict this time.

Meanwhile....the Castle Bar is calling to have me come service the keg. It's about a pint too full right now.