Should President Donald Trump invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807?

1. 83

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   
   Should President Donald Trump invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to end the violence in America's big cities?
   
   “The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335; amended 2006, 2007) that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.
   
   The act provides a "statutory exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of military personnel under federal command for law enforcement purposes within the United States."
   
   The Insurrection Act was invoked numerous times in the 20th century, most famously when Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to enforce the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas.
   
   https://www.history.com/news/insurrecti … aaron-burr

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think the President should just continue to offer help, but let the Democrats that are running the Greatest Show On Earth continue down there destructive path.  Unless the people call out for his help. 
      
      Let's have a look at what has happened in Kenosha. The Dem Mayor and Governor made the decisions after a couple of nights of violence and burning to take the help that the Federal Government offered. The damage was done to the tune of 42 million. The Mayor asked the state for the 42 million to restore the city... 
      
      The President visited Kenosha today and met with people that lost their businesses, and law enforcement, as well as many others. President Trump Promises $42 Million to Support Public Safety in Wisconsin, $4 million to the business owners to help with rebuilding, and $1 million to the city's law enforcement of Kenosha for some of the expenses the officer occurred.
      
      These protests are out of control, but it's up to the people to ask for help. They have plenty of avenues to do just that. If they can see the benefits of these protests let them live with the results, good or bad.
      
      Just so they keep it in their cities.  It makes no sense to me, and in the end in my view, will help no one or no cause. After 100 and some days, I could care less about BLM or anything they stand for. If black people want help, want to change they need to go about it in the right way. At this point, they have hook themselves to the wrong group. BLM  will set them back decades. In my view, the entire mess is getting to be old news, even though it goes on every night in some faraway cities.  People have tuned out. To bad in the first week BLM did not take to a round table, instead of the streets of Dem cities.
      
      They bit off more than they could chew. So let the civil disorder rip... As long as they don't come to my city. If they come to my city, I would ask my President for any and all help to keep law and order. Just the way my community rolls.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No.
      
      The Mayors (Governors, Councils) should run things as they see fit.
      
      The voters of those States can determine if what is occuring in those States is acceptable or not.
      
      Hundreds of thousands are fleeing places like LA, NYC, Portland, many are voting with their feet.
      
      The media cannot hide what is going on, so long is there is Youtube, Facebook, Bitchute, etc. people will see what is really occurring.
      
      Those that rely on the likes of CNN or MSNBC for their news are the older generations, in their 60s and beyond.  Almost no-one younger than 50 relies on what Cable News provides for their information.
      
      Most of us in these political forums are 50+ years old, and even though I fall into that category myself, I watch no MSM news at all, unless its a snippet I catch on Youtube.
      
      People know what is going on... they will vote their choice come November, and if Trump is re-elected then perhaps it will be time for him to invoke it.
      
      Right now, it is important for people to see what Antifa and BLM really believes in, hear what they have to say, see how they have total disregard for those who do not agree with their position, they have no tolerance and no willingness to compromise.
      
      The elections will determine which direction the majority of Americans feel we should go in... and then if they don't want to accept that... then do whatever is required to restore law and order and safety.

      replyreport
   3. 71

      Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Mike, for starting this thread.  It's great to be able to exchange ideas with you again.
      
      After studying the fiasco in Portland, OR, last month, I would predict another political disaster for the president if he tries to use force against American citizens without the explicit consent of local governments.
      
      After federal agents first appeared in Portland early in July ostensibly to protect the federal courthouse, their numbers grew as the month progressed. Their tactics also became more heavy-handed and nightly protests grew more volatile.
      
      By the end of July, Pres. Trump's unilateral deployment of federal agents against American citizens had become a total failure.  The White House announced a "deal" with local law enforcement to protect the federal courthouse, federal agents withdrew from sight, and civil unrest began to cool.
      
      Concerns and criticism about the president's uninvited meddling in the affairs of a state and city governed by Democrats were leveled at President Trump by Republicans as well as by Democrats.
      
      U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) blasted Mr. Trump's Portland debacle in this way: "We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will." {1}
      
      Thanks again, Mike, for launching this thread. Be well, stay safe.
      Q.
      {1} Swan, Rachel. "Trump's threat to send federal forces to Oakland draws California pushback". SFChronicle.com.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I appreciate your response.  I still believe this could be a federal issue as we have protesters going from state to state to protest, burn and loot.  It is not a situation that involves just state and local authorities.  I believe this is quickly evolving into a national problem and a federal issue. 
         
         I don't think the withdrawal of federal troops caused the rioting in Portland to even slow down.  It is now a nightly  occurrence there.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            It appears you were correct, the murderer of the "Trump supporter" who was walking down the street in Portland, has himself been killed by a police raid run and operated by Federal officials.
            
            An article I strongly recommend, an interview of the sister of the killed Antifa murderer:
            
            
            https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … shals.html

            replyreport
2. 75

   aguasilverposted 4 years ago

   Trump is playing the long game, he is constantly asking to help, they are refusing his help, presumably because they think constant rioting will win them an election, however folk are waking up and they are appearing dumb as they allow their Democrat cities and towns to be demolished by radical Marxist agitators and radical rioters.
   
   Never play chess with a master, he is five moves ahead of these idiots, and they have no way to reverse, if they allow him to stop the rioting, they are guilty of allowing it to happen for so long, if they give consent for him to stop the rioters, they are guilty of being seen to have prolonged the devastation, it's a win win situation for Trump, because come election day, the voters will remember how inept and devious these Democrat controllers were, and how cleaver Trump is.

   replyreport
3. 83

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   I believe there is a concern because of one constant elements in the rioting situation is that many of the rioters are from other states.  These people travel from one state to another to engage in violent protests, burn and loot.  Doesn't THIS action of traveling around the country to cause such destruction warrant the federal government to get involved? 
   
   80 Percent of rioters in Minneapolis from out of town
   
   https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/george … 7c292c6bdc
   
   102 of 175 rioters arrested in Kenosha were from out of town
   
   https://thepostmillennial.com/kenosha-p … 102-of-175

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I have heard this from credible sources, many actually fly from one protest to another.
      
      Must be nice to have the funds and time available to be a jet-set protester,
      
      
      The bigger thing is the election itself:
      
      In nine states and Washington, D.C., every registered voter will be mailed a ballot ahead of the election. California, D.C. and Vermont will do this for the first time this fall.
      
      This does not hurt Trump's chances much because all but Utah and Nevada were a lock to go to Biden anyway.  Utah is a lock for Trump, that leaves Nevada as the lone state that could be stolen away by fraud in the mail-in vote system.
      
      In 34 states, voters can cite the coronavirus as a reason to vote absentee or they can cast absentee ballots without specifying a reason.
      
      Absentee ballots are not so easy interfere with, and have rules that must be followed. For example in Florida  be they in person, mail or Online they must be submitted 10 days before Election Day.  And you have to be a registered voter in order to receive one.
      
      In seven states, voters still need a reason beyond the virus to vote absentee. That means many voters in these states will need to vote in person at a polling place, barring any last-minute rule changes.
      
      I find it ironic that one of those states is NY, you think they would be leading the charge to make sure all people have the opportunity to vote.
      
      I doubt we will be stuck waiting on those 9 States to find out who won.
      
      Utah will probably have there results in on time, I would expect no less than exceptional performance from the Mormon state.
      
      If States like NC, OH, FL and TX go for Trump, then the rest of those 8 mail-in states will be meaningless as Trump will have more than enough electoral votes to win.
      
      They can take three months to count their votes, once Trump secures 270 it won't matter.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It will be interesting to see if the rioting protesters cash drys up (like a light switch abruptly being turned off) now that the Dems realize this violent ploy has backfired? Very apparent how all of a sudden Joe is condemning the violence.   It always amazes me how the Dems keep shouting themselves in the foot, you would think they would run out of feet...

      replyreport
4. 84

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   That is interesting information about the different states, the probable import of their voting systems, and which states will really make a difference in the end.
   
   You have gotten my interest. Now I will have to dive in and confirm it for myself. You did it again Ken. ;-)
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks GA, I'm not sure what the "left"'s game has been, trying to convince America that Trump is trying to steal the election by stealing mailboxes and sabotage the USPS.
      
      Nor do I understand their arguments for mail-in voting making a difference.
      
      As I noted, it can only make a difference in one state that wasn't a lock to go to Biden.  This all seems much-ado-about-nothing.
      
      All remaining states, at best have tweaks in their voting system for absentee ballots for those claiming a virus issue.
      
      Trump will have his 270 by the end of election night IF he indeed does well.  Those states allowing for mail-in voting will have no impact on that at all.
      
      So if there is any contestation... it should be immediately settled by the Supreme Court, if he has 270+.  The remaining states trying to hold out until their results are "official" in reality would be meaningless no matter what their results are.

      replyreport
5. 83

   emgeposted 4 years ago

   There is too much violence and from what I can see it appears to have been engineered by a select coterie.  Can't have rioting continuing from one city to another. In that respect in case, this act is still valid then I think the president would be within his right to invoke it to stop the senseless violence.

   replyreport