A lot of truth there. In Chicago, we have residents on camera asking for help. In Seattle and Portland, not as much. I would like to more clearly understand what the residents actually want. Recall? Wait it out for the next election cycle? What do they want?
Supporting Law and Order isn't per se supporting totalitarianism. It's a matter of what form of law and order you are supporting. Putin, Kim, and China would agree with your framing of the question. States rights. The state has options at their disposal. (City, county, state, law enforcement. National guard) The federal government can file emergency motions/petitions in court if they feel something is 'not right.' They should not unilaterally decided: These DEMOCRATIC cities need my (Trump's) form of 'justice.'
Ok, fair point. So your objection here is that the use of Federal troops where not requested is totalitarian. But if the state of Oregon decided to do the same exact thing, you'd be OK with it? What if the state does not choose to do anything to restore law and order? What right do the citizens living there have for protection?
Not completely. Not requested and not authorized via the judicial branch (or via current emergency where great bodily harm or death is likely, or where otherwise authorized by law). In addition to the unlawful actions of the Federal police. Without researching it, I believe the state is sovereign over cities, towns, counties, etc. So, assuming the state police didn't engage in unlawful tactics; yes, I'd be ok with that. Off the top of my head: An aggrieved citizen will have recourse after the fact, of course. Additionally, citizens can request Federal assistance just as anyone call ask to FBI to investigate anything they wish, at any time. If it is an emergency, current situation (hostage, current gun battle, robbery happening now) where great bodily harm or death is likely, the Feds can deploy on their own motion. If it is not a current emergency as described above, the government can petition the courts via an emergency petition, if it is not satisfied with the responses of the governor, to act. Law and order is a concept for everyone, not just the citizens.
I appreciate you making your position clear. I'm actually really close to you on this issue (being a BIG fan of the defense of state's rights). Can you think of any situation at all - even in the most extreme situation where a state government completely fails to uphold what it is supposed to do that would result in you being OK if the federal government stepped in? The reason I ask is whether this is an issue of subjectivity once again where there is a line that you would be OK to cross if we got to that point, but we're just no where near that point yet.
"junta". "Brown shirts". Coming from avowed Marxists Leninists who scream no border , no wall, no USA at all ...!!! Coming from those that would defund police, grant instant amnesty/welfare/healthcare to all illegals and increase refugee quotas by 10 TIMES Coming from those that defund the military, impose crippling Paris climate accord CO2 taxes, normalize offshoring with China for Wallstreet. And get rid of merit based immigration Coming from those who scream racism against white men. Who revile at Christianity. And topple statues and rewrite history books and tell us one plus one is white supramecy. Trump is far too weak. Blue states allow looting. Rioting. Arson. Assaults. Murders. Send in dhs to police the street. Marxist Leninists are scum.
Cry more bitch, when Biden administration disappears inbred Cons, we can use the 'Marxist Lenisist' precedent.
Sure, when inbred Cons do another gun rally threatening to shoot officials, it would be Biden justice to drop a missile on them and their families without any due process.
I can only think of situations where I mentioned ... discrete emergencies where great bodily harm or death is in play. Everything else must go through the courts, or via an invite. If you call 911 saying your neighbor said he's going to cut your tree down. They'll respond that that's not an emergency, nor is it a police matter. They'll say it's a civil matter to be resolved in court. But if you call 911 saying your neighbor has a gun, and he said he's on his way over to kill you. Now that's an emergency, and the police will act. The Fed, imo, are like the police in these examples. Their job should be to stay out as much as possible. If the locals, state police or national guard can handle it, let them. That's what they are there for. If they courts can handle it, let them. Problems, in every type of scenario, should be handled at the lowest level possible. To your question specifically: States don't fail, people do. There are many parts to a state government. If the governor fails, the states representatives can impeach, or invoke immediate remedies and removal if medical professionals certify that the governor must be clinically crazy. Those same representatives can pass emergency legislation to override a wayward governor and they can even invite federal assistance. I can imagine no scenario where a POTUS can examine crime statistics (or anything else), and decide on his own, to invade a state. But I can see the Feds taking the lead when a federal question is in play (kidnapping across state lines, anything involving more than one state, basically). Local crime is not a federal question. BTW, POTUS could instead be looking to enforce the guns laws that are already on the books. The guns in Chicago aren't manufactured there, they are going in from across state lines. That's ATF's jurisdiction.
The only thing is your use of the concept of "an emergency". I can easily see the situation in Portland or Chicago, or Seattle back in the CHOP days as an emergency. If Trump sent in Federal Agents to San Fran right now, I'd be going "wtf".