The need to deal with the Democrats second civil war

Frank Miele:

Jonathan Karl of ABC News asked an interesting question of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany at last Tuesday’s press briefing:

“Where in the Constitution does the president derive the authority to send federal law enforcement officers to the streets of American cities against the will of the elected officials in those cities?”

McEnany, as it turned out, was prepared. Section 1315 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code, she explained, “gives DHS the ability to deputize officers in any department or agency like ICE, Custom and Border Patrol and Secret Service … for the duties in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the federal government.”

She added, “When a federal courthouse is being lit on fire, commercial fireworks being shot at it [and] being shot at the officers, I think that falls pretty well within the limits of 40 U.S. Code 1315.”

Since violent thugs have targeted the federal courthouse in Portland, Ore., it was an appropriate response, but it didn’t directly answer Karl’s question, which asked about constitutional authority for the use of federal force. It is a question worth asking, in part because there are many urban areas in the United States currently under similar attack but where no federal property is involved.

I’m not sure if Karl thinks President Lincoln’s use of federal force was justified when it was used to put down the rebellion in not just a few riotous cities, but across the entire South, but I do know for a fact that the United States Army was there “against the will of the elected officials” in those cities and states.

Presidential adviser Stephen Miller, appearing on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” last Thursday, claimed that the current insurrection is not an aberration, but an echo of that earlier Civil War begun by earlier Democrats who rejected the power of the federal government.

“The Democratic Party for a long time historically has been the party of secession,” Miller said. “What you’re seeing today is the Democratic Party returning to its roots. These are mayors and governors that are saying the federal law -- the U.S. Constitution -- doesn’t apply within the confines of our cities, and our citizens will be held at the mercy of the mob, and the administration of justice, the federal courthouse will be allowed to fall under siege, and that’s what’s happening right now in Portland.”

Taking a cue from Miller’s historical analogy, President Trump could learn from the example of our 16th president. Abraham Lincoln had a reputation for taking bold action to preserve the Union, sometimes skirting the Constitution, but there was never any doubt where his allegiance lay. He was dedicated to his oath of office, which had him declare publicly that he would “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In the face of secession by the Southern states, Lincoln decided that preserving the Constitution was worth bending it a little. Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus is still debated, and it provides some insight into the use of federal police powers today to quell unrest.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution provides that “The Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it.” That provision protects against unlawful imprisonment, but it also makes a specific exemption involving rebellion and public safety.

The mayor of Atlanta in 1864 objected passionately to Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman’s invasion just as Mayor Ted Wheeler has strenuously objected to the federal officers trying to restore law and order in Portland. But in both cases they would have been wrong to say the Constitution does not provide authority for the president to act. And although the provision to suspend habeas corpus is found in Article I, which is dedicated to legislative powers, there is no reference to the legislature in this specific provision. Insofar as the president is designated as the commander in chief, it is therefore reasonable to assume that he — not Congress — shall be expected to act during a crisis of “rebellion or invasion” to restore public safety.

Nor is Article I the only provision that empowers the president to act. The Constitution guarantees citizens of the United States certain civil rights, including the right of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Those rights are being impeded by the far-left mobs rioting in Portland, Seattle and other cities, as well as by the lawlessness that has been spawned in many urban areas by defunding or decommissioning police.
...

There is more.

President Trump has been quite restrained in his use of force to stop the riots and the assault on federal property.   He would be within his rights as president to declare the Antifa-BLM mobs as a rebellion and suspend the right of Habeas Corpus and round them up.