Looks like its fixin to get for real boys and girls.

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Ghost1958, Jul 5, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,612
    5,087
    113
    I have opinions based on facts and what I observe That they don't jive with your opinions hardly makes them stirring the pot. Any more than yours are .
    The truth is the truth if nobody agrees with it. Sorry it hurts your feelers that I post them in various threads. Especially the ones I started.

    BTW I don't have any biological brothers.
    The men who call themselves my brothers you probably would not want to meet.
     
  2. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,865
    2,686
    113
    Nice.

    Federalism matters.
    The Constitution's pillars matter.
    States' rights matter.

    They are the structure. Their co-existence helps ensure the structure maintains its integrity. It's all vital to the checks and balances critical for liberty and a free people to continue to exist.

    Funny thing about three-legged stools. Can't be having one without the others. Not if we want it all to survive.

    The states, themselves, simply cannot be shoved aside on a whim, and without iron-clad justification. Not because some code has been crafted and in disregard for the principles the Constitution lays out. The states each have their own constitutions, and those still command authority whether a wayward, ham-handed outside force chooses to disregard or not. There are ways to do these things. Those "three legs of the stool" must be respected.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  3. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    674
    475
    63
    Over 200 years, the Insurrection Act has been used dozens of times, according to a Congressional Research Service report published in January.

    The first time was by Jefferson just a year after he signed it into law. In 1808, Jefferson declared the Lake Champlain region in New York and Vermont to be “in a state of insurrection” based on its continued violations of the Embargo Act, according to a history of the law written by an Army major with the U.S. National Guard at the School of Advanced Military Studies. (Unlike Trump, Jefferson didn’t refer to the insurrectionists by derogatory names but instead called them “sundry persons.”)

    In 1831, President Andrew Jackson, at the request of the Norfolk mayor, deployed federal troops to quash Nat Turner’s slave rebellion in Virginia’s Southampton County — the largest such revolt in U.S. history. A detachment of three army artillery companies arrived in Suffolk, Va., along with members of the Navy, according to the book “The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1789-1878” by Robert W. Coakley.

    The birthplace of American slavery debated abolishing it after Nat Turner’s bloody revolt

    Four decades later, in 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant expanded the Insurrection Act so that he could suppress uprisings against “any part of or class … of people” who are “deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution.”

    Grant’s target was the violent Ku Klux Klan, which was, according to the Coakley book, inciting “its members to commit crimes, including murder, against Republicans and blacks” and rarely facing prosecution.

    Once the law passed in the spring of 1871, Grant was quick to act. On May 3 of that year, he issued a required order for the scofflaws to cease violating anyone’s constitutional rights. Then, after learning that the KKK was still thriving in several South Carolina counties, he organized more than 1,000 soldiers to round up several hundred Klansmen. “Scores” of suspects were arrested, many of them interrogated for several weeks without an indictment. By Jan. 1, 1872, the Army had detained more than 600 men, and most of them were tried and convicted in federal court.

    Over the next several decades, the law would be used many more times by other presidents. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower wielded the Insurrection Act during the desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock. Nine black students who enrolled at the all-white school were testing out the 1954 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which concluded that segregated public schools were unconstitutional. On Sept. 25, Eisenhower sent federal troops to escort the students into the school safely, after they’d been barred earlier that month by National Guardsmen called in by the state’s governor.

    More recently, President George H.W. Bush ordered federal troops into Los Angeles in 1992 after Peter Wilson, then-governor of California, made a request to help quell riots after the four police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King were acquitted.

    And so much for three-legged stools, states having to agree to it, and armchair lawyers. Trump would not have publicly indicated he would use it unless he knew he could. :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  4. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,362
    3,644
    113
    Yes after the governor requested help, not unilaterally.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  5. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,865
    2,686
    113
    Nearly every example when it has been used, in its history, has been over defiled civil liberties and/or at direct state request. Only very rarely has it been used for localized criminality, but those almost always at direct state request.

    There's good reason for that.

    Because the alternative is, frankly, against the foundational principles the constitutional rule of law stands on.

    And, because they know they'd be pushing their luck if they utterly disregarded the states unless under iron-clad conditions.

    Beware what you wish for, dispensing with the states and the citizens rights to control their own communities (states). It won't end well.
     
    Ghost1958 and Gatoragn like this.
  6. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    22,215
    13,679
    113
    But just as the fed cannot disregard the states, neither can the states disregard the fed.

    Then, there's also that troublesome "Supremacy Clause" in the Constitution.
     
  7. bluez

    bluez Well-Known Member

    3,201
    2,686
    113
    While I am principal in favor of DJT using the Insurrection Act I again like to point out that a great many American institutions either sympathize or even actively cooperate with the insurrectionists.
    As a result use of this act may backfire by giving the enemy political capital to play with.
    In the science of mass psychology power not used diminishes, yes, but power overplayed diminishes even more.

    The only american president in recent memory ( as much as it pains me) who could have "gotten away", was the un-president Obama. Because he had the knee jerk support of his own party in lock step (which DJT does not have), he had a intimidated opposition in the opposition party ( which DJT does not have), he had support of the cartel media, academe and the 3 letter agencies.. none of which DJT has..
    I do however believe we can use the RICO act to beat the enemy's Garden of Beasts.
    Since the billionaire class has been supporting via donations and the creating of NGO fronts, to AntiFa/BLM/RevCom the RICO act can be used to confiscate their wealth and then use it against the left.
    The Obama un-administration has set the precedent for this by using the banking "settlement" windfall fines and gave it to leftist pressure groups.. illegal... but now the precedent has been set.. declaring this by establishment consensus as "grey area" tool available to the next President.
    Lets do it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    G66enigma and Gatoragn like this.
  8. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,612
    5,087
    113
    Which has nothing to do with the situation being discussed.
    Or the fact that the states can, and do, ignore and refuse to enforce ANY act of Congress.
    They cant stop the Fed from enforcing enforcing congressional decrees , but they do not have to enforce, recognize , or aid the fed in their enforcement.
     
    G66enigma likes this.
  9. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,865
    2,686
    113
    When laws conflict, yes. Backed up by decades of court decisions on that point. Absolutely.

    (Doesn't hardly mean: Feds always; Feds get to, regardless; what Feds say goes; when Fed patience wears thin, that's enough "justification.")

    None of which really applies in a basic case of ineffective local law enforcement of state statutes.

    Where's the dividing line, if local LE doesn't matter, state police doesn't matter, and the people's choices on how they want to manage their localized problems doesn't matter. What, is the fed force to come swooping in when the least robbery or murder is to be taken as a "national" problem and ineptitude or unwillingness pointed to as justification?

    Again, the states' constitutions and their execution of their laws matter, and those cannot be lightly brushed aside as though they weren't there. (IOW: get agreement on supplemental force being brought in, via National Guard or whatever.)

    Imagine if New York's general level of crime in the late 1960s through the late 1980s was "not tolerated" at the federal level and, against the wishes of the NY Legislature and the NY Governor, the fed had come blazing in to clean up Dodge. Yes, criminals would have been found and caught (or put down). But, along with that, a vast well of resentment would have been likely, for such an approach against the will of the people.

    It's the "nuclear" option, swooping in to take control over local LE, local Sheriffs, state police, overriding the will of their legislatures and governors. It had darned well better be used sparingly and justifiably, else there's a host of sticky, ugly little impacts downstream that are risked. IMO, mere localized criminality hardly rises to the level justifying any such thing. Aside from all the ugly potential ramifications if cramming it down people's throats.
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  10. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,612
    5,087
    113
    JMO but there is really only two ways of effectively stopping these particular riots.
    This isn't the 60s where MLK was calling for peaceful protest.

    The loosely called leaders now promote violence.
    LE are not going to stop anything. They are the primary reason for the mess going on now. They dont have the will or the numbers and are the target of the protests to begin with. Like waving red in front of a bull.
    So you are left with the NG or local militia and armed citizens.

    Sending in the guard is legal if called by the gov . And they can stop the riots.
    While they are there. However no state is going occupy one of its cities with the NG all the time. Once they are withdrawn the protests /riots will begin again the next day.
    Actually the same applies to the military if it is so illegally and foolishly used.

    Or when local militia and armed citizens protecting themselves , their homes and businesses present themselves , leave them the hell alone to do what needs done. Pull LE off the streets and put them on vacation for a time.

    The violence and looting will stop in short order and the force that made it stop is right there, still in place because its local and lives there. Not withdrawn so the bad actors cant simply start up again.

    Novel solution I know. Allowing the citizenry and militia to do what they are constitutionally empowered to do. Long before a police force or insurrection act was in place.
    Never happen of course. Gov fears an armed citizenry like Dracula fears the sun.
     
    G66enigma and bluez like this.
  11. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,564
    7,364
    113
    Got any examples of the Feds arresting an elected state office holder, prosecuting and having them serve jail time for violating Federal law other than corruption, embezzlement, etc.?

    Maybe something like, "Governor ABC signed a state law that violated the COTUS, said governor was arrested, tried, convicted and served 10 years in the Federal pen?"
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  12. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    22,215
    13,679
    113
    The idea of local militia is joke. A dirty joke. that would simply be anarchy. No law, no rules, just law of the jungle.

    Give the police the manpower, equipment and public support they need and they will solve the problem quickly.

    And BTW, Ghost.

    THE POLICE ARE NOT THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS.
     
    sheriffjohn, W.T. Sherman and manta like this.
  13. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,612
    5,087
    113

    You are correct. As well as organized milita who dont support BLM etc , but would see the use of the active military used against the people as a very slippery slope , and if not physically resist it, stop supporting any president who ordered it over such minor upheavals in a few cities.

    I dont support the rioting etc but those wanting Trump to use the insurrection act dont realize a huge portion of his base will simply stop supporting him if he begins acting like an authoritarian dictator.
     
  14. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,612
    5,087
    113
    I said the police are the target of the riots .
    Because of Floyd, Taylor, and other questionable acts of force by police everywhere are the focus of these protests / movements.

    The police no matter how much manpower you give them are not going to stop the protests or the riots . They are , if you think it's right or wrong , what sparked these riots, and are seen as the enemy now regardless what they do or dont do. Period. Many are simply quitting.
    They are irrelevant in this mess except to further inflame the protestors/ rioters by their very presense.

    Armed citizens in militas, or just groups protecting homes and businesses can stop all this in short order and keep it stopped.
    You have anarchy now in these areas. I'd submit gov sponsored anarchy because the only real arrests being made are when a armed citizen defends himself against the thugs. Its alot easier to come out of hiding long enough to arrest a kyle rittenhouse for clear self defense, than actually face up to a group of people who will burn you alive if they can.

    Like I said. The people will not be allowed to stop this. Mostly because gov is not going to allow how little control they actually have of citizens to be exposed more than it already has.
     
    G66enigma and bluez like this.
  15. manta

    manta Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,362
    3,644
    113
    Makes me wonder how police in other countries manage to deal with rioters and looters, without militia's.
     
    locutus likes this.
  16. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    674
    475
    63
    Well, the only enemy that could use it for political capital is the Left which doesn't need any anyway, they just lie and make up their own on a daily basis as it is, which is actually sedition, so who gives a rip what they think or do ... so long a they don't do violence and any such violence is STOPPED. And I support him in stopping it by whatever means necessary including Ma Deuces.

    And for those who don't know what a Ma Deuce is ...
     
  17. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,564
    7,364
    113
    Maybe the police in other countries are not "handcuffed" by city officials that will not allow the use of tear gas and other crowd dispersal methods like the mayors in Portland, Seattle, etc.
     
    JTJ, Ghost1958, locutus and 2 others like this.
  18. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    674
    475
    63
    If Eisenhower could use it to protect just 9 black kids getting into one school, Trump can certainly use it to put down widespread murder, looting and vandalism by the likes of BLM/Antifa. It isn't me saying he can, it is Trump himself with the aid of those experts at his disposal saying so. And I believe him and support him.

    If and when Trump does use it, I guess you and other Federalist preachers like Ghost can jump up and down in your pulpits until your suspenders break, your pants fall off and one of your pulpit's three legs break off ... and it won't make a bit of difference. :):):)


    The way I see it, if that widespread violence happens, it must be put down, there is no alternative to putting it down, the only question is how. OK, how can that be accomplished? Without using the Insurrection Act, there is only one way ... a mob of armed civilian citizens against a mob of violent terrorists ... the two-word name for that is "Civil War". And like it or not, that could take 10 years or so, and if those terrorists are well-funded by some turkey like George Soros, the terrorists might win, maybe probably win. Nobody would be safe, even asleep in their beds, for about a decade or longer ... and that includes YOU. For me, the choice is dirt-simple ... use the Insurrection Act and the full military and put it all down in a month or so ... decisively. And that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. ;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  19. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    674
    475
    63
    I saw in the news just yesterday where AG Barr and the Justice Dept are looking into possibilities of doing exactly that to the mayor of Seattle and maybe the mayor of Portland as well ... I have no idea where that will end up, but if they think they can and win the up-hill push to enforce their actions, Cuomo had better run for cover as well. :) Who knows, maybe we are entering a new era of actual accountability for governors and mayors. ;)
     
  20. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,865
    2,686
    113


    Again, civil rights compared to local crime. There's a distinction on "the level" of the issue at hand, there. As there should be. When constitutional-grade civil liberties are at stake and rulings defied, then it's not up to some podunk mayor to defile it. Though it is in the case of local crime, if they so choose.


    If it ever does become widespread, I agree.

    The mere fact hundreds (or perhaps a thousand or two) congregate in a large city doesn't make it widespread, IMO. Nor does that it lasts and lasts in that city, primarily because the community's people do not want their stance to change. Certainly not simply because a small percentage of those honestly gathering to protest end up actually rioting and threatening people and property.

    At bottom, what really should happen is action occurs via the will of the people. And if the people of a state don't actually support changing their stance, if they're comfortable with having dark burning "holes" as communities ... that's on them.

    The moment they clearly express (through their representative hired staff) that they're willing to request additional aid and support, then by all means such support of forces should be considered (granted).

    It is pitiful there are such mayors and city councils, such governors and state reps, who won't strongly support the separating out and putting down of violent criminals during such gatherings. The only way it's going to be taken is: they support rioting. But cramming an alternative down the throats of such communities/states is a heavy-handed approach that can't be walked back and which (if unasked-for) has many nasty downstream effects.


    Easiest solution is: for the citizens themselves to stand up for themselves and to take up arms in protection of themselves and their properties. Lacking that, in the long run they'll remain soft targets. The rioting types know this. It's why they stay in/near the cement jungles of urban centers, typically. Less obvious resistance there. Try that crap in more-rural spots and you're likely to get drilled and put down. Try that crap in a spot where there's only police in that town, and riot in sufficiently great numbers, then it's not difficult to overwhelm the resources.

    People need to go about armed. People need to heavily-armed their homes and businesses. People need to actually do something when their places are threatened with arson, looting, etc. Failing that, it's going to continue by the small percentage of such gatherings that choose to do these things.


    A city nearby me is typical of this recent violent crap. Many, many hundreds have gathered for weeks, following the mess this spring, yet only on a handful of occasions was widespread firing of shops done, only on a handful of occasions was widespread violence against individuals done. Most of such arrests were for failure to disperse, failure to follow lawful commands [ie, getting out of the street and ceasing impeding traffic, or similar]. In most spots around the city, zero damage occurred and zero people were threatened. I suspect in most of the urban areas in the U.S. this past summer are quite similar, in that regard. The vast percentage of gatherers were there to make their voices heard and to not engage in outright violence; and a very small percentage, almost always, ended up the ones making the mess).

    Localized crimes, localized instances, in communities with resources deployed to halt the worst of the worst of such violations, but where they're occasionally overwhelmed in terms of being able to halt gatherings altogether. Towns need to decide whether failing to sweep up the messy percentage of such gatherers when they're found rioting is something they actually want. If not, then they need all the resources they can muster, supplemented with outside help if needed. But if it is what they want, to remain incapable of responding in the numbers necessary ... well, that's on them. And that's not a "federal" problem simply because some don't like that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.