One of the problems with your strategy is-----A lot of blue states are in play this year and could flip red with the right policy and action.
Posse Comitatus aside, Trump needs to depoly military to stop the riots
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Keep in mind that the Posse Comitatus law prevents the military from participating in general acts of law enforcement that are the responsibility of the states or related to specific federal laws. The act specifically (which it must anyway) exempts areas where the federal/national government and President have authority directly from the Constitution. The authority "to suppress insurrections" being a prime example, as stated in the Constitution.
Just sayin. Have your little street fun and looting but be careful with all that clamoring and rhetoric related to overthrowing the government unless it is specifically related to the ballot box.
Can hardly wait for Trump to win in November. This country will change a lot during the next four years.
God Bless Trump
God Bless Trump
Posse Comitatus does not apply where states have authorized federal troops via legislation... and the states request federal intervention. Affected states could get the legislature together and "pass a law". Several already have such laws on their books.
All that aside, I still think Trump should send in the troops. Let the lawyers piss-and-moan about it and have the courts settle it latter. But first stop the criminal violence. Innocent people and businesses have rights, too!
Last edited:
Yes, there are multiple scenarios that go beyond what can be covered in posts. Several earlier posts conflate sending in troops with martial law. Those are different scenarios. The simplest scenario is when fed troops are sent in to carry out federal constitutional obligations. That does not violate posse comitatus laws. Not does coming in at the request of a state.
Martial law goes beyond just sending in troops. It is a declaration that normal civil and criminal laws have been suspended (such as the right to habeas corpus/sp) and that military law now applies. That is a whole nuther ball game fraught with all sorts of constitutional issues. The requirements to do this are very strict. The supreme court even shot down Lincoln's declaration of martial law in the Civil War in, I think it was Ohio, because he demonstrated that troops might be needed but not that the civilian courts were no longer capable of functioning.
As I said, some of this is beyond what can be covered in posts. Adding in too that states have separate powers to declare martial law. The feds have the power to put down outright insurrections though without declaring martial law if it rises to that level. It is not true that a president must declare martial law to use troops. The civilian law may still be functioning and the courts still functioning, but troops are needed for enforcement.
It would take a lot for the feds to make the case that a riot or certain collective actions actually rise to the level of an insurrenction, but I gotta say, there have been words and actions in that direction. When these riot clowns declare that their goal is to actually overpower and replace local or state governments rather than to just achieve some policy change, they are starting down that road- particularly if they are coordinating with larger entities or groups in other parts of the country.
The mobs are CRIMINALS! And local law enforcement/government is letting them have their way. That's wrong on every front!
I would imagine a reasonable threshold in which to employ Federal police would be the legitimate arrest of local and state leaders for conspiring with the rioters combined with a mass casualty event. Other than that, let voters decide who should lead them.
We saw Federal police deployed to protect a Federal Courthouse in Portland, OR because it was threatened by protesters that local or state officials did nothing about. Trump withdrew these forces after they mistreated protesters. I can imagine promises were made by local leaders regarding the safety of Federal Courthouse as well.
I see the Democrats realizing the are in an unviable position in effectively supporting property destruction, violence, and defunding the police. Most recent betting odds and polling show momentum is going decisively against them.
Instead of focusing on the political opportunity for the Republicans this presents and how to efficiently capitalize on recent events, and the Republicans have been far from efficient so far, is to hold out an olive branch to the Democrats to address long term deep wounds on ideas that our political process and nation work the best when the parties trust and respect each other. Further, there are social and political reforms desperately needed to reduce public dissatisfaction and corruption regarding our politicians. This needs the cooperation of both parties to happen.
Trump seems to have some qualities that people don’t give him credit for. The signs are there: Trump has not initiated new wars, in fact, he has reduced US involvement of them. Trump avoided going heavy handed against the rioters. Trump can quickly change course when it is obvious we are headed in the wrong direction. Whether Trump can rise to a level not too far from MLK, jr., remains to be seen.
More specifically, what the Republicans did to the Clintons was represensible in many people’s eyes. The Republicans set up Bill Clinton and relentlessly attacked Hillary beyond what was reasonable under the circumstances for political gain at the cost of trust and respect by Democrats and the public. After Bill Clinton’s impeachment, his popularity increased, infuriating Republican leadership. Republican leadership saw the public’s reaction as a sign of a declining culture where people believed it was ok to lie. As a result, Republican leaders used their influence to change the status quo regarding police stops who then implimented a silent policy of charging citizens with obstruction of justice for lying to an officer. Did this “Silent policy” cause unintended consequences later regarding police stops? I have seem this in play when I’ve been stopped for traffic violations and in the courtroom while watching other cases while waiting for my case to be called. The judges I’ve seen have universally dismissed these obstruction charges out of hand.
For all that has happened in 2020, would it be great if the trust and respect divide between the parties were closed?
I hope to get feedback from ET members on the following proposal: Republicans apologize to the Clintons either directly or indirectly on behalf of their predecessors for their dirty tactics and commit to reforming how they conduct their politics in the future. After this is done, a follow up proposal that addresses accountability, transparancy, political contributions, and investigative practices could be submitted. It would likely be beneficial and necessary to combine with this proposal a cessation of investigations on both sides and amnesty of politician offenses up to the date of ratification of the proposal. Yes, it lets some corrupt politicians escape prosecution for potentially serious crimes, but practically speaking, we are all victims of the greatest crime of not being properly represented by our political leaders, regardless of political affiliation.
What say you?