flown-the-coop said:

---

Vepp said:

---

I was all for cleaning up the streets of DC with federal forces. Usurping the state's authority is another matter. BAD TRUMP.

Politics aside, deploying federal troops to major cities should ring an authoritarian bell in your head.

---

States have no authority to say "we have no laws and respect no laws nor do we have a duty to protect our citizens".

Authoritarian is preventing people from freely exercising lawful rights. Here, the state and locals have infringed those rights by not protecting them.

---

I agree with you. But, the thing is the states aren't saying that.

They aren't? Pretty sure that's exactly what those cities are doing, even if they are not saying it.

Those states and cities will comply with law & order. Wait and see. Trump is not playing this time around.

Also, Lincoln taught us what states rights are about. Hint, he wasn't a big fan.

The good of the federal trumps the rogue of the individual state. Else, we are not a country but a collection.

flown-the-coop said:

---

JW said:

---

This is just Trump trolling. Enjoy. Now they have to defend crime.

---

They can either accept Trump's help or defend crime. Total pickle they are in.

---

Yep Hate to see it ...

txwxman said:

---

We really need Trump to send troops to Amarillo / Potter County. Absolutely embarrassing crime infested cesspool.

---

Did you get your meth stolen by a homeless man again?

kb2001 said:

---

Not a fan of this

DC is one thing, it's the federal capital and not part of any state. If the city is not taking care of its people, the next level is the feds.

Chicago and New York City need to be handled by their states. If the city is not taking care of its people, the state needs to intervene. Much like Abbott did for Austin when they defunded their police during the BLM riots and fallout.

---

Ok. And what if the local and state gov'ts are purposefully doing nothing to stop the violence……e.g. 1964 Mississippi?

f burg ag said:

---

kb2001 said:

---

Not a fan of this

DC is one thing, it's the federal capital and not part of any state. If the city is not taking care of its people, the next level is the feds.

Chicago and New York City need to be handled by their states. If the city is not taking care of its people, the state needs to intervene. Much like Abbott did for Austin when they defunded their police during the BLM riots and fallout.

---

Ok. And what if the local and state gov'ts are purposefully doing nothing to stop the violence……e.g. 1964 Mississippi?

---

Wasn't that under the Insurrection Act? (I could be wrong on that.)

Congress could act as well.

If the polling shows it's a win to support action, Congress could authorize the federal policing.

And I think surging ICE and FBI vs national guard would be much better received.

Hell, Trump relied heavily on burghum and the park police for a softer image in DC. Then used the troops for machinery show and tell.

Trump got this. People need to release the pearls, relax the spinchter (not too much now).

"If people dont like the crime, they should vote to change mayors/governors" - not realizing the criminal element is in bed with the party in charge of these municipalities.

An American has a right to step out of his house and not live under the threat of violence from unpunished, unpoliced criminals.

We are a nation of laws. When the selective application of law results in a destruction of the general welfare of citizens, it is perfectly valid for measures to restore peace. This isnt partisan or authoritarian, its rational and loving.

aggiehawg said:

---

f burg ag said:

---

kb2001 said:

---

Not a fan of this

DC is one thing, it's the federal capital and not part of any state. If the city is not taking care of its people, the next level is the feds.

Chicago and New York City need to be handled by their states. If the city is not taking care of its people, the state needs to intervene. Much like Abbott did for Austin when they defunded their police during the BLM riots and fallout.

---

Ok. And what if the local and state gov'ts are purposefully doing nothing to stop the violence……e.g. 1964 Mississippi?

---

Wasn't that under the Insurrection Act? (I could be wrong on that.)

---

Hell if I know. But if the feds have to send in Gene Hackman, you know someone effed up a free throw, nuclear launch or lynching. And then send Williams Dafoe with him……..shhhhiiiiiiiiit, there must be malfeasance in the platoon.

OOOOOOH!

Can't wait to hear what the dim bulb, racist, socialist mayor Brandon will have to say about this!

You know he claims Trump is jealous of his brain and accomplishments.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Vepp said:

---

I was all for cleaning up the streets of DC with federal forces. Usurping the state's authority is another matter. BAD TRUMP.

Politics aside, deploying federal troops to major cities should ring an authoritarian bell in your head.

---

States have no authority to say "we have no laws and respect no laws nor do we have a duty to protect our citizens".

Authoritarian is preventing people from freely exercising lawful rights. Here, the state and locals have infringed those rights by not protecting them.

---

With all due respect, it's almost like you have no understanding of the constitution and the framework of this country.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Vepp said:

---

I was all for cleaning up the streets of DC with federal forces. Usurping the state's authority is another matter. BAD TRUMP.

Politics aside, deploying federal troops to major cities should ring an authoritarian bell in your head.

---

States have no authority to say "we have no laws and respect no laws nor do we have a duty to protect our citizens".

Authoritarian is preventing people from freely exercising lawful rights. Here, the state and locals have infringed those rights by not protecting them.

---

Because lord knows that no crime happens on Federal property. This is a clear violation of the 10th amendment IMO.

With your view, shouldn't the Feds take over every city, county and state because they all have some level of crime. This sets a bad precedence and would allow libs to take over city governments as well.

Its cute watching conservatives quote the BORs.

Logos Stick said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Vepp said:

---

I was all for cleaning up the streets of DC with federal forces. Usurping the state's authority is another matter. BAD TRUMP.

Politics aside, deploying federal troops to major cities should ring an authoritarian bell in your head.

---

States have no authority to say "we have no laws and respect no laws nor do we have a duty to protect our citizens".

Authoritarian is preventing people from freely exercising lawful rights. Here, the state and locals have infringed those rights by not protecting them.

---

With all due respect, it's almost like you have no understanding of the constitution and the framework of this country.

---

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115608/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20230329-SD008.pdf

FlyRod said:

---

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115608/documents/HHRG-118-GO00-20230329-SD008.pdf

---

Vepp said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Vepp said:

---

I was all for cleaning up the streets of DC with federal forces. Usurping the state's authority is another matter. BAD TRUMP.

Politics aside, deploying federal troops to major cities should ring an authoritarian bell in your head.

---

States have no authority to say "we have no laws and respect no laws nor do we have a duty to protect our citizens".

Authoritarian is preventing people from freely exercising lawful rights. Here, the state and locals have infringed those rights by not protecting them.

---

With all due respect, it's almost like you have no understanding of the constitution and the framework of this country.

---

---

So do we have a federal government or not?

Does federal law rule over state law?

Or are we just when convenient to your rhetoric a loose federation of states where slavery is allowed here, Jim Crow there, child sex is great here, drink when you are 12 here, vote when you are a toddler there?

It's almost like none the younger realize there is such a thing as the the constitution.

And it's an INDIVIDUAL bill of rights, not a bill of STATES rights.

Get some frickin education.

It would be handy to have things under control in Chicago for the weekend of September 12.

Kansas Kid said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Vepp said:

---

I was all for cleaning up the streets of DC with federal forces. Usurping the state's authority is another matter. BAD TRUMP.

Politics aside, deploying federal troops to major cities should ring an authoritarian bell in your head.

---

States have no authority to say "we have no laws and respect no laws nor do we have a duty to protect our citizens".

Authoritarian is preventing people from freely exercising lawful rights. Here, the state and locals have infringed those rights by not protecting them.

---

Because lord knows that no crime happens on Federal property. This is a clear violation of the 10th amendment IMO.

With your view, shouldn't the Feds take over every city, county and state because they all have some level of crime. This sets a bad precedence and would allow libs to take over city governments as well.

---

I take it you never actually read the 10th amendment. So we can only prosecute a kidnapping or civil rights violation if it occurs on federal property? Really?

Cause me thinks you have no understanding of federal law or the supremacy clause or for that matter the text of the 10th. Try again.

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Exactly the opposite. Just because state or city has crime (which they all do), doesn't give the Feds the right to take over law enforcement for the cities or states.

My additional point is the Feds aren't exactly perfect in preventing crime as crime also happens on Federal property so why will it suddenly go away if the Feds take over when they can't prevent it on their own lands/buildings.

Kansas Kid said:

---

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

---

Okay, so do kidnapping. How about bank robbery? RICO? Civil rights cases?

The Fed has reserved lots and lots of authorities for itself.

The states can have parking tickets and property taxes. What world are you living in?

Kansas Kid said:

---

Exactly the opposite. Just because state or city has crime (which they all do), doesn't give the Feds the right to take over law enforcement for the cities or states.

My additional point is the Feds aren't exactly perfect in preventing crime as crime also happens on Federal property so why will it suddenly go away if the Feds take over when they can't prevent it on their own lands/buildings.

---

Give me the crime rates outside of DC and blue cities and let's have a discussion on this. You have to be joking with this nonsense. Cmon man, at least try and have a discussion with facts and a basis in reality.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Exactly the opposite. Just because state or city has crime (which they all do), doesn't give the Feds the right to take over law enforcement for the cities or states.

My additional point is the Feds aren't exactly perfect in preventing crime as crime also happens on Federal property so why will it suddenly go away if the Feds take over when they can't prevent it on their own lands/buildings.

---

Give me the crime rates outside of DC and blue cities and let's have a discussion on this. You have to be joking with this nonsense. Cmon man, at least try and have a discussion with facts and a basis in reality.

---

So how high does crime have to be before the Feds can take over? Also please show me where in the constitution the Feds have the right to take over state and local governments?

Would you be ok the next time a liberal President is in place if they federal troops in Oklahoma because they think they are depriving people of their rights because they aren't enforcing any law they think is important?

ETA. Since you want stats, 10 of the 13 states including Texas with the highest violent crime rates are states that voted for Trump. Why shouldn't the Feds take over all 13 of those states?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_violent_crime_rate

You deflecting or dumbmandering the goal posts?

I asked you about crime rates on federal land, since you think that is the only place feds can operate.

Have you ever heard of the EPA? IRS? How about Federal Air Marshalls? FTC? Man, lots of guys better be getting their state level permissions.

You don't like it because it's Trump. If they were swinging colored folk from trees because Bryan Police said it's not their problem, would you be clamoring for muh states rights?

Let's see your cards Kansas.

Ag with kids said:

---

txwxman said:

---

We really need Trump to send troops to Amarillo / Potter County. Absolutely embarrassing crime infested cesspool.

---

Did you get your meth stolen by a homeless man again?

---

The ungodly things I had to do to get my meth back. I won't be able to sit till Labor Day.

Logos Stick said:

---

No. I don't want any tax money spent on those crime ridden crap holes.

If the libs want lawlessness and favoring criminals over citizens, that is their choice! NYC is about to elect a communist. LoL

---

I want the cities cleaned up so that the liberals stay in them, instead of spreading like locusts and bringing their voting habits and ideology with them.

flown-the-coop said:

---

You deflecting or dumbmandering the goal posts?

I asked you about crime rates on federal land, since you think that is the only place feds can operate.

Have you ever heard of the EPA? IRS? How about Federal Air Marshalls? FTC? Man, lots of guys better be getting their state level permissions.

You don't like it because it's Trump. If they were swinging colored folk from trees because Bryan Police said it's not their problem, would you be clamoring for muh states rights?

Let's see your cards Kansas.

---

Let's see
EPA - established by Federal law in 1970. Entity just got a lot of its claimed power stripped by the Supreme Court with Chevron being overturned. While some of what they do I believe is covered by the Constitution, a lot of EPA actions are arguably states rights issues.
IRS - enforces the 16th amendment so clearly within the Constitution
Air Marshalls - used for travel across state lines so that would be covered under interstate commerce so again Constitutional
FTC - Again interstate commerce so covered by the Constitution

Two people getting in a fight in a city and one kills the other. Let's see how you think that isn't a states rights issue.

I don't oppose this because it is Trump. I oppose it because it isn't a Federal issue and no matter who the President is, I would oppose it. I believe FDR was the worst President in US history because he started the path of obliterating states rights and rapidly growing the Federal Government which has continued since then (yes Lincoln can be argued he did the same but FDR kicked it into overdrive)

Now please answer the questions of where this is a federal issue under the Constitution and why shouldn't the President call in the National guard to any state with above average crime or what is the threshold where crime is too high. People like you think the only reason why anyone opposes actions taken by Trump are because of TDS but in reality many/most on hear think they are just really bad ideas.

PS Entire Cabinet level organizations that I believe violate the Constitution - Dept of Education, Dept of Labor, and HUD

flown-the-coop said:

---

You deflecting or dumbmandering the goal posts?

I asked you about crime rates on federal land, since you think that is the only place feds can operate.

Have you ever heard of the EPA? IRS? How about Federal Air Marshalls? FTC? Man, lots of guys better be getting their state level permissions.

You don't like it because it's Trump. If they were swinging colored folk from trees because Bryan Police said it's not their problem, would you be clamoring for muh states rights?

Let's see your cards Kansas.

---

Kansas has exposed your limited understanding of our Constitution well enough that I don't think you are debating in good faith or are ignorant to reality. Your love for Trump might be clouding your judgment. You know that it's a dangerous overreach for the feds to be involved in state law enforcement. Would you be okay if the tables were turned and a democrat administration deployed federal troops to cities in which they thought needed 'help'?

Furthermore, the EPA, IRS, Federal Air Marshals, FTC etc operate under ENUMERATED powers under the constitution. Local and state policing aren't enumerated in the Constitution; therefore, they fall under the states' authority.

Maybe you should have paid attention in your poli sci classes?

flakrat said:

---

Of course, as soon as the Guard leaves DC, criminals will go right back to what they were doing. That is, unless there are major leadership shakups at the chief of police, DAs etc /LOL

---

Yep it will take political courage to keep the crime rate down. But if it does spike right back it will be easier for people than ever to see that we don't have to live like this in our cities. It's all a matter of will.

Vepp said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You deflecting or dumbmandering the goal posts?

I asked you about crime rates on federal land, since you think that is the only place feds can operate.

Have you ever heard of the EPA? IRS? How about Federal Air Marshalls? FTC? Man, lots of guys better be getting their state level permissions.

You don't like it because it's Trump. If they were swinging colored folk from trees because Bryan Police said it's not their problem, would you be clamoring for muh states rights?

Let's see your cards Kansas.

---

Kansas has exposed your limited understanding of our Constitution well enough that I don't think you are debating in good faith or are ignorant to reality. Your love for Trump might be clouding your judgment. You know that it's a dangerous overreach for the feds to be involved in state law enforcement. Would you be okay if the tables were turned and a democrat administration deployed federal troops to cities in which they thought needed 'help'?

Furthermore, the EPA, IRS, Federal Air Marshals, FTC etc operate under ENUMERATED powers under the constitution. Local and state policing aren't enumerated in the Constitution; therefore, they fall under the states' authority.

Maybe you should have paid attention in your poli sci classes?

---

What Trump is doing is provided for in Constitution and under our existing laws, as you and Kansas confirmed there are many powers that have been reserved for the Feds.

How are you defining local and state policing? Are you saying the FBI cannot have local field offices?

Also, as long as the national guard works under local LEO perfectly fine there as well.

You guys act like it's prohibited to do what Trump is doing. It is not.

You don't just get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution is convenient to your argument and ignore the rest. That's you issue, there is just so much you simply are not aware of or ignore cause you don't like what Trump is doing.

Which is odd, because all he is doing is keeping your businesses from being looted, your car being stolen, your spouse being raped and robbed, and you kid from being hooked on fentanyl and trafficked by the cartel.

I mean the horror of the Feds stepping in because dumb**** liberals believe in lawlessness and you throwing your hands up and saying "people getting what they voted for" and "states rights say if we want lawlessness than we can has lawlessness".

Let me know when violent crime touches you and we can have a better discussion.

Nothing more disingenuous than white suburban liberals spouting states rights rhetoric. Sounds like the 1860s all over again.

Mission accomplished. Overton window successfully moved. Excellent work everyone.


Wild to see from conservatives in my lifetime.


Think the guard will get sponsor patches? Maybe an Intel ribbon

ETFan said:

---

Mission accomplished. Overton window successfully moved. Excellent work everyone.


Wild to see from conservatives in my lifetime.


Think the guard will get sponsor patches? Maybe an Intel ribbon

---

Or your team could vote for leaders that actually abide by the Constitution instead of referencing it like a Bible when they are in fact non believers.

You could vote for protecting the innocent, the elderly, the vulnerable, the unborn. You could believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vs oppression, death and endless suffering so prevalent in the big cities run by the blue, the incompetent, the Soros-ed.

But nah, you think it's funny and call folks hypocrites whilst being a shining example of it.

Trump, go for it.

waitwhat? said:

---

kb2001 said:

---

Not a fan of this

DC is one thing, it's the federal capital and not part of any state. If the city is not taking care of its people, the next level is the feds.

Chicago and New York City need to be handled by their states. If the city is not taking care of its people, the state needs to intervene. Much like Abbott did for Austin when they defunded their police during the BLM riots and fallout.

---

Exactly. General law enforcement is not the purview of the federal government and shouldn't be.

---

I agree. BUT I don't have a problem with Trump sending in the NG to protect federal buildings.