If this is not insurrection . . .

This forum has examined the events of Jan 6th, 2020 in detail. That is not the topic of this thread.

****************************** *****

There have been many confrontations between agents of the Immigration Customs Enforcement agency in the past few weeks. These confrontations have been characterized by the mainstream press as "protests", mostly peaceful or otherwise. We can, and have, quibble over what these interactions are called.

However, there are calls from local and regional officials for the agents of law enforcement under their authority toresst and even impede the efforts of Federal Lawmwn (and women) to enforce Federal laws within their jurisdictions.

A Mayor or Governor who issues orders that impede or oppose the actions of Federal law enforcement, whether they are ICE agents, FBI, or MPs from a nationalized National Guard unit, are\, in my view are, themselves, insurrectionists.

...A Mayor or Governor who issues orders that impede or oppose the actions of Federal law enforcement, whether they are ICE agents, FBI, or MPs from a nationalized National Guard unit, are\, in my view are, themselves, insurrectionists. Originally Posted by ICU 812

They also seem to be Communists or Socialists, if that seem more tasteful.

What exactly is the difference between a protester exercising their right of speech and assembly and an insurrectionist, ie someone in open revolt against civil authority?

When does such revolt become necessary to utilize the military against civilians under the insurrection act instead of utilizing civilian police forces?

You should answer these questions before you start labeling people as insurrectionists.

This forum has examined the events of Jan 6th, 2020 in detail. That is not the topic of this thread.

****************************** *****

There have been many confrontations between agents of the Immigration Customs Enforcement agency in the past few weeks. These confrontations have been characterized by the mainstream press as "protests", mostly peaceful or otherwise. We can, and have, quibble over what these interactions are called.

However, there are calls from local and regional officials for the agents of law enforcement under their authority toresst and even impede the efforts of Federal Lawmwn (and women) to enforce Federal laws within their jurisdictions.

A Mayor or Governor who issues orders that impede or oppose the actions of Federal law enforcement, whether they are ICE agents, FBI, or MPs from a nationalized National Guard unit, are\, in my view are, themselves, insurrectionists. Originally Posted by ICU 812

Who are the insurrectionists ICU? The mayors and governors who impede or oppose federal agents acting under executive order from the president? Or the president who ordered the federal agents to violate state and local laws and ordinances? Maybe both? I don’t know the answer. It may depend on the circumstances. Admittedly if the federal agents are enforcing immigration laws, constitutionally the mayors and governors could be on shaky legal ground.

Who are the insurrectionists ICU? The mayors and governors who impede or oppose federal agents acting under executive order from the president? Or the president who ordered the federal agents to violate state and local laws and ordinances? Maybe both? I don’t know the answer. It may depend on the circumstances. Admittedly if the federal agents are enforcing immigration laws, constitutionally the mayors and governors could be on shaky legal ground. Originally Posted by Tiny

The Governors or Mayors are not impeding. They are giving the orders to impede. As you may recall, there is that whole Supremacy Clause thing-a-ma-jiggy. From our good friends at constitution.congress.gov:

Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Good sailing

The Governors or Mayors are not impeding. They are giving the orders to impede. As you may recall, there is that whole Supremacy Clause thing-a-ma-jiggy. From our good friends at constitution.congress.gov:
Good sailing Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Yes, but “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.” Admittedly, immigration law is mostly federal.

I wouldn't have any problem with the states coming up with their own immigration laws, if electoral votes and representation in the House were solely based on the number of citizens. Right now, they're based on the number of residents, legal and illegal. If California or Illinois wanted to open the floodgates, let them. Why should people in Wyoming or Oklahoma care, if the undocumented immigrants aren't allowed to migrate there from California? However, I believe our laws and Constitution don't allow for that.

In any event, calling the president, mayors and governors insurrectionists, like ICU and I did, isn't really accurate. The differences will be settled in the courts, not with gunshots.

Genuinely and frankly speaking, I've covered most of this dirt before regarding these sorts of numbers and things.
1) Generally speaking, the Federal government was granted very limited powers initially. Protect the homeland, make treaties, set tariffs, yet has been gaining more and more ever since. Funny how that works. Huh? As you may recall The original Billy Mays, aka <from the wikipedi:>

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the collective pseudonym "Publius" to promote the ratification of the Constitution of the United States...

Basically, a massive sell job to a populace that had little interest about having a central government with massive powers, for some odd reason, after having just finishing up a war with one based in England.

2) It is genuinely a math problem. If States keep raking up pseudo-citizens, their influence (effluence more like) becomes outsized and has greater sway and dilutes the others, especially in the US House. Though the main goal of States rights, was to keep the voting closer to home, for mathematical reasoning as well.

As such, a coalition of bloated states can override States rights from the Federal level, especially being in such a constant power grab state. Think Commifornia, NY and Minnesota - Yah, sure! You betcha.

BTW: This is exactly how the Socialists hope to gain control.

3) Your last sentence is not settled science. Maybe you listened to too much Dr Fauci.
Let's hope it's at least aspirational.

Yes, but “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.” Admittedly, immigration law is mostly federal.

I wouldn't have any problem with the states coming up with their own immigration laws, if electoral votes and representation in the House were solely based on the number of citizens. Right now, they're based on the number of residents, legal and illegal. If California or Illinois wanted to open the floodgates, let them. Why should people in Wyoming or Oklahoma care, if the undocumented immigrants aren't allowed to migrate there from California? However, I believe our laws and Constitution don't allow for that.

In any event, calling the president, mayors and governors insurrectionists, like ICU and I did, isn't really accurate. The differences will be settled in the courts, not with gunshots. Originally Posted by Tiny

Willfully impeding (and even encouraging violence against) federal law enforcement certainly would fall under insurrection. A blatant act against the federal government, who are enforcing the laws on the books.

Next time let's go all the way.

Willfully impeding (and even encouraging violence against) federal law enforcement certainly would fall under insurrection. A blatant act against the federal government, who are enforcing the laws on the books. Originally Posted by Lantern2814

So adulterating the gasoline of ICE vehicles is grounds for the president to invoke the insurrection act?

I disagree.

Willfully impeding (and even encouraging violence against) federal law enforcement certainly would fall under insurrection. A blatant act against the federal government, who are enforcing the laws on the books. Originally Posted by Lantern2814

Such as entering the capitol with the intent of stopping congress from performing their duty. That seems pretty blatant.

So adulterating the gasoline of ICE vehicles is grounds for the president to invoke the insurrection act?

I disagree. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

No. It's because YOUR people are physically attacking ICE agents. And morons like Pritzker, AOC, Waters, they call for more of this. That's called assault. But of course you ignore the facts.

Such as entering the capitol with the intent of stopping congress from performing their duty. That seems pretty blatant. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Got anything on topic? No surprise you encourage assaulting ICE officers.

That’s exactly on topic. J6 was an attempt at an insurrection. Resisting law enforcement is not an insurrection.

J6 was an attempt at an insurrection. Resisting law enforcement is not an insurrection. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Lol... those two sentences were contradictory. Weren't the J6 protestors "resisting law enforcement" when they broke into the Capitol?