The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, if the President is operating under existing laws, then the issue of the Constitution - and the Supremacy Clause - presumably doesn't apply. 

So the question then becomes: under what laws is the President sending federal officers in ? If he's using the 1807 Insurrection Act then - again - this is not a constitutional issue, because the law was passed by Congress. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

The provisions of the act can be implemented under the following circumstances, in the judgement of the President of the United States....

• when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
• to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
• to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).

It could be argued that parts (2) and (3) are applicable. However, it doesn't seem clear what happens if a State Governor refuses to co-operate ? It could be argued that the Act becomes inoperable ? I think that would be one for the Supremes. 

No you are wrong it does apply, because according the clause it takes congressional approval to over ride states rights. Like sending Federal Agents to States where are not wanted or asked for. So in effect the President violated the Constitution by not gaining Congressional Approval before sending those agents. The decision to go against what the Constitution outlines must be approved by Congress, the President doesn't have the authority to do so on his own.

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

No you are wrong it does apply, because according the clause it takes congressional approval to over ride states rights. Like sending Federal Agents to States where are not wanted or asked for. So in effect the President violated the Constitution by not gaining Congressional Approval before sending those agents. The decision to go against what the Constitution outlines must be approved by Congress, the President doesn't have the authority to do so on his own.

And I re-iterate: I think that one will have to go to the supremes, because the act - in and of itself - is somewhat ambiguous about state approval. 

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

And I re-iterate: I think that one will have to go to the supremes, because the act - in and of itself - is somewhat ambiguous about state approval. 

I doubt it will even make it that far.  The Constitution overrules any law.  The state has not requested federal intervention to meet the first condition.  And the people being deprived of their Constitutionally-secure rights are the protestors in the third.  (Federal Property doesn't have any Constitutionally secured rights)

What Trump is doing is illegal, plain and simple.

He and his team probably know it and is just using this whole thing as an excuse to blame Democrats for the election by claiming he tried to stop the riots but the evil Democrats stopped him in court............

[Buzz_Light_Year]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315
2002 Law that is in effect. This covers Federal property and does not require congressional approval.

If the Federal government invokes the Insurrection Act then Federal resources can be utilized without the approval of Congress for general lawlessness or actual insurrection.

So you may wish to ignore those who make statements that the President needs Congressional approval to utilize Federal assets as he has two avenues to approach the problem.

Quote

 

(b) Officers and Agents.—

(1) Designation.—

The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.

(2) Powers.—While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may—(A)

enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;

(B)

carry firearms;

(C)

make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;

(D)

serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the authority of the United States;

(E)

conduct investigations, on and off the property in question, of offenses that may have been committed against property owned or occupied by the Federal Government or persons on the property; and

(F)

carry out such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.

 

Some of you seem to have forgotten the Patriot Act.

[simplybill]

The USA Patriot Act gives authority to the Dept. of Homeland Security to intervene in terrorist activity in any State. 

(15) The term ‘‘terrorism’’ means any activity that— (A) involves an act that—
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and
(B) appears to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

It was enacted in 2002, long before Donald Trump was elected President.

“Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum.“
 

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/hr_5005_enr.pdf

[aztek]

16 hours ago, Piney said:

The Constitiution didn't apply to me on the right to bear arms, the right to be unmolested on my property and the "triple jeopardy" clause with being indicted 3 times after the first two times my charges were dismissed as my actions were legal. So to me that document doesn't exist. 

Meanwhile I soooooo enjoy watching it all fall down. 

Let it burn, let it all burn. 

oh please,  from what it looks from sources you linked a while ago, you pi$$ed off someone important and powerfull, it has nothing to do with constitution, and we still only know your side of the story,   again from articles you linked before, there is no way to know what happend,  your  alleged self defence most likely wasn't a real reason, but an excuse, you rubbed someone important the wrong way, that much is clear, who was it? your father?

Edited July 23, 2020 by aztek

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, aztek said:

who was it? your father?

Probably. 

He's a two bit scammer and welfare profiteer who ranted at me that "I wasn't about money." 

Karma does come though. I'm just watching and waiting. 

[lightly]

Ah yes....the war on TERROR !!!   Good thing all those sleeper cells we were shown all over maps of the United States ..never woke up.   .   

As I read the "patriot act". .it very basically says....  the government has all rights ....including the right to decide that you have none.

Edited July 23, 2020 by lightly

[simplybill]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Ah yes....the war on TERROR !!!   Good thing all those sleeper cells we were shown all over maps of the United States ..never woke up.   .   

As I read the "patriot act". .it very basically says....  the government has all rights ....including the right to decide that you have none.

Well, technically, you have the right not to behave like a terrorist.

[ChrLzs]

13 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Well, technically, you have the right not to behave like a terrorist.

You mean, like peacefully protesting?  I think I'm getting it now..

Yep, let's get them terrorists - look at them - disgraceful:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53504151

 

[simplybill]

13 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

You mean, like peacefully protesting?  I think I'm getting it now..

Yep, let's get them terrorists - look at them - disgraceful:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53504151

 

Perhaps the ‘moms’ in Portland behave better than the ‘moms’ in Chicago:

 

[lightly]

On July 23, 2020 at 8:32 AM, RoofGardener said:

"Prerogative" means a Right or Privilege. Hence they have a 'right' to enforce Federal Law. 

That just doesn't sound right.  I'd hafta say they have a duty to enforce the law.   ..  ?

A 'right' is a choice. .which can be excercised   or Not.     

[lightly]

On July 23, 2020 at 5:04 PM, simplybill said:

Well, technically, you have the right not to behave like a terrorist.

The word  terrorist  to me, is far more terrifying  than than any fear generated by the few hell raisers ,and a few paid provacateurs, spray painting a statue or breaking a window. .during an otherwise peaceful and legal demonstration.

the peace officers seem to be more violent than the crowd !?

[simplybill]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

The word  terrorist  to me, is far more terrifying  than than any fear generated by the few hell raisers ,and a few paid provacateurs, spray painting a statue or breaking a window. .during an otherwise peaceful and legal demonstration.

the peace officers seem to be more violent than the crowd !?

If you take into account the hundreds of small businesses that were looted and burned, and the hundreds of police officers that have been injured or murdered, the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ seem appropriate to me.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

The word  terrorist  to me, is far more terrifying  than than any fear generated by the few hell raisers ,and a few paid provacateurs, spray painting a statue or breaking a window. .during an otherwise peaceful and legal demonstration.

the peace officers seem to be more violent than the crowd !?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unlawful_assembly
 

Quote

 

unlawful assembly

Primary tabs

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

When three or more people meet with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act to deliberately disturb the peace.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riot
 

Quote

 

riot

Definition

A concerted action: (1) made in furtherance of an express common purpose; (2) through the use or threat of violence, disorder, or terror to the public; and (3) resulting in a disturbance of the peace. Under common law, the crime of riot requires the assemblage of three or more actors. The concerted acts may be unlawful in themselves, or they may be lawful acts that are done in a violent or turbulent manner. Among the different forms that riots may take include escalated labor disputes or political demonstrations. While most riots occur in public places, they may also take place within prisons

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advocacy_of_illegal_action

All these can be found under First Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Very few of the protest have been peaceful or law abiding.

 

[GlitterRose]

On 7/23/2020 at 10:54 AM, aztek said:

oh please,  from what it looks from sources you linked a while ago, you pi$$ed off someone important and powerfull, it has nothing to do with constitution, and we still only know your side of the story,   again from articles you linked before, there is no way to know what happend,  your  alleged self defence most likely wasn't a real reason, but an excuse, you rubbed someone important the wrong way, that much is clear, who was it? your father?

Is this you...who constantly preaches the merits of the 2nd amendment...telling someone they didn't have the right to defend their property?

[GlitterRose]

12 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unlawful_assembly
 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riot
 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/advocacy_of_illegal_action

All these can be found under First Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Very few of the protest have been peaceful or law abiding.

 

Most of the protesters have been peaceful. 

It's using the actions of a few to demonize the lot, and trying to make it open season for the feds to come in.

Again...if there are people doing illegal things, then the police arrest them. 

[micahc]

the supremacy clause has nothing to do with this topic. It is a clause in the constitution, taken from the articles of confederation to ensure states do not pass laws inconsistent with the constitution. Also when  there is conflict between a state statute and a federal statute the federal statute prevails as long as it is constitutional in all other respects.  it does not give the federal government special police powers to invade a state. Suggest you consider the 10th amendment.  

[Buzz_Light_Year]

13 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

Most of the protesters have been peaceful. 

It's using the actions of a few to demonize the lot, and trying to make it open season for the feds to come in.

Again...if there are people doing illegal things, then the police arrest them. 

As the law states if 3 or more actors exhibit the behavior that falls under unlawful assembly or riot then the whole assembly is illegal.

Yes, those that are committing illegal acts are being arrested yet you complain about unmarked LE vehicles and LE not having clear identification. LE has been using plain clothes officers and unmarked vehicles for a very long time, but now it seems it doesn't set well with you.

I have posted before that Federal Assets can be used to protect Federal property and they don't need permission from local authorities or the state. They can arrest without warrant any person who is seen committing an illegal act against said property on or off the property.

Breaking windows, throwing projectiles, setting fires, shining laser lights at a LEO and disturbing the peace are all illegal activities. These actions are not the activities of peaceful protestors.

I'll add one more illegal activity and that is blocking traffic, yes Virginia it is illegal unless permitted as in a permit is usually required for a set time and date.

Also the arrest of the 18 for arson was done in conjunction with local LE assets.

[GlitterRose]

4 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

As the law states if 3 or more actors exhibit the behavior that falls under unlawful assembly or riot then the whole assembly is illegal.

Yes, those that are committing illegal acts are being arrested yet you complain about unmarked LE vehicles and LE not having clear identification. LE has been using plain clothes officers and unmarked vehicles for a very long time, but now it seems it doesn't set well with you.

I have posted before that Federal Assets can be used to protect Federal property and they don't need permission from local authorities or the state. They can arrest without warrant any person who is seen committing an illegal act against said property on or off the property.

Breaking windows, throwing projectiles, setting fires, shining laser lights at a LEO and disturbing the peace are all illegal activities. These actions are not the activities of peaceful protestors.

I'll add one more illegal activity and that is blocking traffic, yes Virginia it is illegal unless permitted as in a permit is usually required for a set time and date.

Also the arrest of the 18 for arson was done in conjunction with local LE assets.

The people being taken in unmarked vans are not being arrested, because they don't have any reason to charge them. 

[GlitterRose]

Unlawful Assembly. A meeting of three or more individuals to commit a crime or carry out a lawful or unlawful purpose in a manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquillity of the neighborhood. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly.

It is not what you are saying it is.

If it was, there would probably never be any lawful assembly in large groups.

 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

6 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

The people being taken in unmarked vans are not being arrested, because they don't have any reason to charge them. 

You don't know that. Maybe you should reread what I posted on illegal activities.

Quote

Breaking windows, throwing projectiles, setting fires, shining laser lights at a LEO and disturbing the peace are all illegal activities. These actions are not the activities of peaceful protestors.

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Buzz_Light_Year

[Buzz_Light_Year]

4 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

Unlawful Assembly. A meeting of three or more individuals to commit a crime or carry out a lawful or unlawful purpose in a manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquillity of the neighborhood. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly.

It is not what you are saying it is.

If it was, there would probably never be any lawful assembly in large groups.

 

What don't you understand about the underlined?

Edited July 25, 2020 by Buzz_Light_Year

[Buzz_Light_Year]

2 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

 

..........................

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by Buzz_Light_Year

[GlitterRose]

Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

You don't know that. Maybe you should reread won't I posted on illegal activities.

 

Like I said, if people among the protesters are doing illegal things, then the police arrest them. 

You don't have unidentified men in unmarked vans just nabbing random people who aren't doing anything wrong.

That's what's happening.