Insurrection in Los Angeles

[liberty]

Are you saying the President doesn't have the responsibility to suppress riots and insurrections across the country? Does he just have to sit in the White House and watch them happen? Now, if it were a Democratic President handling things the same way Trump is, I presume it would be considered acceptable?"

[Sue U]

No, the President in fact does NOT have the authority to suppress riots, and "insurrections" only on invocation of the Insurrection Act where there is some actual threat to the government, none of which is the case here. Managing a protest, even one that involves property damage, is a matter for local police. Calling out the state military reserve is as a rule the Governor's call, not the President's -- even when the President seeks to "federalize" the Guard. The President is affirmatively prohibited from deploying the active US military domestically. What is happening in Los Angeles is an unconstitutional overreach of the Trump Administration that is edging itself into a police state dictatorship. Why else would Kristi Noem say she is there to oust the duly elected government of the city?

ETA:

Oh, it seems the US District Court agrees with me and the Constitution:

At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.64.0.pdf

Do you think Trump has enough respect for the American system of government to comply with the Court's order? I highly doubt it.

[Big RR]

Are you saying the President doesn't have the responsibility to suppress riots and insurrections across the country? Does he just have to sit in the White House and watch them happen? Now, if it were a Democratic President handling things the same way Trump is, I presume it would be considered acceptable?"

Come on Liberty, you clearly wan the president to have this right to act unilaterally? Certainly, if there is a court order to be enforced (such as in the integration of schools orders) or a request of the governor saying the violence has gotten beyond what the state can handle, then the president can act; but when it is not, the courts can halt the president on that expansion of powers. don't like it? Congress can change some of the laws and the Constitution can be amended, but be careful before you blithely throw away the protections we now have, lest you dismiss them and wind up in a hell.

And if the president refuses to respect the order, hopefully congress will step up to their responsibility and remove him from office (as well as any other successor who thwarts the rule of law. This is a dangerous time and the rule of law is pretty much all we have left. If that is taken from us, I hate to think what the next step is. But I guess that is of no concern to you, is it?

[BoSoxGal]

And if the president refuses to respect the order, hopefully congress will step up to their responsibility and remove him from office (as well as any other successor who thwarts the rule of law. This is a dangerous time and the rule of law is pretty much all we have left. If that is taken from us, I hate to think what the next step is. But I guess that is of no concern to you, is it?

No concern to liberty nor his millions of MAGA friends who are thirsty for a fascist papa.

[Big RR]

Or Duce; at least the trains will run on time.

[liberty]

No, the President in fact does NOT have the authority to suppress riots, and "insurrections" only on invocation of the Insurrection Act where there is some actual threat to the government, none of which is the case here. Managing a protest, even one that involves property damage, is a matter for local police. Calling out the state military reserve is as a rule the Governor's call, not the President's -- even when the President seeks to "federalize" the Guard. The President is affirmatively prohibited from deploying the active US military domestically. What is happening in Los Angeles is an unconstitutional overreach of the Trump Administration that is edging itself into a police state dictatorship. Why else would Kristi Noem say she is there to oust the duly elected government of the city?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.64.0.pdf

[/quote]

There is a threat to the national government's authority to remove unwelcome guests from the country, as the removal of those who do not have permission to be here is being challenged.

[liberty]

This is rich. You guys are suddenly concerned about the concentration of power and constitutional safeguards—when did this come about? In the past, you always seemed to be on the other side, favoring centralized power. This is not the first time the National Guard has been federalized without the cooperation of a state governor. It's especially ironic, considering that the leader of this exercise is none other than our well-known comrade Sue, an admirer of the Chinese Communist system of late.

The only time I can ever remember the left being concerned about constitutional safeguards was a few years ago when they complained about Benjamin Netanyahu’s changes to the Israeli Supreme Court. They argued that, without a federal system or separation of powers, there was no institutional protection for them other than their Supreme Court.

[Big RR]

This is not the first time the National Guard has been federalized without the cooperation of a state governor.

No, but I cannot recall a time when a president acted unilaterally; not enforcing the orders of a federal court, e.g., to send in troops.

n the past, you always seemed to be on the other side, favoring centralized power.

In a single person? When was that. I know I never have and I do not recall anyone else endorsing it, regardless of who was the chief executive. But you seems to be endorsing it. that is not the Constitutional view of the executive branch.

[Scooter]

The first U.S episcopal appointment by His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, was to make the Most Reverend Michael Pham the Bishop of San Diego. He came to the U.S. as a refugee, so there is clearly a message being sent. And now Pham is organizing a group of faith leaders to go to the federal court building "to stand in solidarity with migrants who are making their court appearances".



The sight of ICE gestapo tear gassing priests should make for good television.

[liberty]

This is not the first time the National Guard has been federalized without the cooperation of a state governor.

No, but I cannot recall a time when a president acted unilaterally; not enforcing the orders of a federal court, e.g., to send in troops.

n the past, you always seemed to be on the other side, favoring centralized power.

In a single person? When was that. I know I never have and I do not recall anyone else endorsing it, regardless of who was the chief executive. But you seems to be endorsing it. that is not the Constitutional view of the executive branch.

I know it wasn't you because I remember your opinion on the subject. But do you remember when we were discussing the Civil War, and I claimed it was not treason? Was it not Shit Head and Sue who said that Southern states were traitors. They said all the leaders from sergeant and above should have been executed, but they could not have been traitors. Since the states are sovereign and have no peers, they cannot commit treason against the federal government. If the states can commit treason, then they are not sovereign—they are subservient to the federal government. In that case, the federal government can do anything it wants regarding the National Guard, including federalizing it.

[Scooter]

I actually said everyone who fought for the Confederacy and/or who gave it aid and comfort should have been executed because they were traitors, because Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines them as such in black letter law*. I would certainly never have never limited it only to senior ranks or even only to those in the armed forces. And I absolutely stand by that statement.

But that bears absolutely no resemblance or relationship to this porker:

In the past, you always seemed to be on the other side, favoring centralized power.

which you pulled out of your own ass and attempted to put into my mouth.

I keep reminding you that my memory of what has been said here will always be better than yours, but you haven't managed to absorb that lesson yet.

And don't you get tired of a foreigner showing you up about what your Constitution says over and over and over and over again?

No?

Then I certainly won't ever tire of doing it.



*"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

[Burning Petard]

The left has supported concentration of power and favored limitations on constitutional protections? It wasn't the left that created the HUAC and the Hollywood Blacklist.

I guess among many things Liberty is ignorant of the long history of the American Civil Liberties Union.

snailgate.

[liberty]

Remember when I said the other day that there are Mexicans who want to take back the Southwest for Mexico? And some people right here on this site would hand it over—knowing it would weaken us. But they don't care, because they don’t see themselves as American citizens. They see themselves as citizens of the world, so it doesn't matter to them.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/he ... d250&ei=33


If you are protesting and rioting to remain in the United States, why wave a Mexican flag?

That’s the question frequently being asked as Los Angeles continues to be wracked by violent protests that began in opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Southern California.


As many have noted, it’s probably not the best look for any protest group demanding to remain in America to wave the flag of a foreign country.

But the reality is that the mass Mexican flag-waving isn’t just a PR blunder. They aren’t just waving those flags because they don’t want to be deported back to Mexico. The message they are sending is often not even pro-immigration, but bizarrely nativist.

Here’s a protester making an animated case that Los Angeles is actually “Mexican.”

Mexico’s Senate president made a somewhat more measured argument that Los Angeles and the American Southwest should be a part of Mexico.

[Joe Guy]

How disgusting! That's almost as bad as Native Americans demanding to be treated equal to us white people.

[BoSoxGal]

Remember when I said the other day that there are Mexicans who want to take back the Southwest for Mexico? And some people right here on this site would hand it over—knowing it would weaken us. But they don't care, because they don’t see themselves as American citizens. They see themselves as citizens of the world, so it doesn't matter to them.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/he ... d250&ei=33


If you are protesting and rioting to remain in the United States, why wave a Mexican flag?

That’s the question frequently being asked as Los Angeles continues to be wracked by violent protests that began in opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Southern California.


As many have noted, it’s probably not the best look for any protest group demanding to remain in America to wave the flag of a foreign country.

But the reality is that the mass Mexican flag-waving isn’t just a PR blunder. They aren’t just waving those flags because they don’t want to be deported back to Mexico. The message they are sending is often not even pro-immigration, but bizarrely nativist.

Here’s a protester making an animated case that Los Angeles is actually “Mexican.”

Mexico’s Senate president made a somewhat more measured argument that Los Angeles and the American Southwest should be a part of Mexico.

Don’t be daft.

By your logic, the 20% of us in Massachusetts who claim Irish heritage are lobbying for secession from the USA and to become part of Ireland every St. Patrick’s Day when Irish flags abound.

America is a nation of immigrants who have always celebrated their ancestors and homelands. For Mexican Americans it is only different because not very long ago a large part of this country was actually their country, which we took from them. The border crossed them long before any of them crossed a border. We should always have expected them never to forget that.

If your vision of Russia invasion comes to fruition would you expect your great grandchildren to ever give up loving the Stars and Stripes? They certainly haven’t stopped loving and displaying their southern cross.

[liberty]

Remember when I said the other day that there are Mexicans who want to take back the Southwest for Mexico? And some people right here on this site would hand it over—knowing it would weaken us. But they don't care, because they don’t see themselves as American citizens. They see themselves as citizens of the world, so it doesn't matter to them.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/he ... d250&ei=33


If you are protesting and rioting to remain in the United States, why wave a Mexican flag?



That’s the question frequently being asked as Los Angeles continues to be wracked by violent protests that began in opposition to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Southern California.


As many have noted, it’s probably not the best look for any protest group demanding to remain in America to wave the flag of a foreign country.

But the reality is that the mass Mexican flag-waving isn’t just a PR blunder. They aren’t just waving those flags because they don’t want to be deported back to Mexico. The message they are sending is often not even pro-immigration, but bizarrely nativist.

Here’s a protester making an animated case that Los Angeles is actually “Mexican.”

Mexico’s Senate president made a somewhat more measured argument that Los Angeles and the American Southwest should be a part of Mexico.

Don’t be daft.

By your logic, the 20% of us in Massachusetts who claim Irish heritage are lobbying for secession from the USA and to become part of Ireland every St. Patrick’s Day when Irish flags abound.

America is a nation of immigrants who have always celebrated their ancestors and homelands. For Mexican Americans it is only different because not very long ago a large part of this country was actually their country, which we took from them. The border crossed them long before any of them crossed a border. We should always have expected them never to forget that.

If your vision of Russia invasion comes to fruition would you expect your great grandchildren to ever give up loving the Stars and Stripes? They certainly haven’t stopped loving and displaying their southern cross.

I don't condemn anyone for celebrating their heritage—in fact, I actually think it's healthy. No one should be ashamed of who they are. However, there are certain elements of the left that promote the idea that white people—and especially, Southerners—should be ashamed and hide their faces in public because of their ancestry.

I don’t hold that view. Everyone can be proud of the achievements of their ancestors and also acknowledge their shortcomings. But that's not what I'm talking about here—I'm referring to practical realities.

If the left were to hand back the Southwest United States to Mexico, they would be weakening this country. Within a century, our freedoms and liberties would be severely challenged. We don't need to become weaker—we need to become stronger. That’s why the addition of the Canadian provinces to this country would only be good for liberty and for all freedom-loving people.

China is on the move, with their allies—including Russia and Iran—rushing to build power. They will be a formidable force in the future. One thing my Confederate ancestors taught the people of the South (which the North seems to have forgotten) is that wars are won and lost long before the first shot is ever fired.

So yes, I have to worry about the loyalty of Mexican immigrants in this country—when it appears that many of them still hold loyalty to Mexico. Southerners are Americans, and we always have been. Our loyalty will always be to this country—unless, of course, it's ever necessary for the smart rats to leave a sinking ship.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Lib told us:

One thing my Confederate ancestors taught the people of the South (which the North seems to have forgotten) is that wars are won and lost long before the first shot is ever fired.

Then why did your Confederate ancestors fire on Fort Sumter in 1861?

[BoSoxGal]

Southerners are Americans, and we always have been. Our loyalty will always be to this country

Bwahahaha!

No, you were not always Americans, and you were not always loyal to this country!

You seceded from the Union and started the most awful war in the history of the Union which caused the loss of as many as 850,000 souls, leaving an everlasting wound on our collective psyche. Because you wanted to own other human beings in perpetuity.

Not loyal then, and many still not loyal now 160 years later.

[liberty]

Lib told us:

One thing my Confederate ancestors taught the people of the South (which the North seems to have forgotten) is that wars are won and lost long before the first shot is ever fired.

Then why did your Confederate ancestors fire on Fort Sumter in 1861?

Because from their perspective it was an encroachment on their territory.

[liberty]

Southerners are Americans, and we always have been. Our loyalty will always be to this country

Bwahahaha!

No, you were not always Americans, and you were not always loyal to this country!

You seceded from the Union and started the most awful war in the history of the Union which caused the loss of as many as 850,000 souls, leaving an everlasting wound on our collective psyche. Because you wanted to own other human beings in perpetuity.

Not loyal then, and many still not loyal now 160 years later.

Well, why do we make up such a large majority of the combat arms in the United States military? Those are the people who actually do the fighting—not those in supply or support, but those whose job it is to go out, find, and fight the enemy.