It’s not unexpected that a liberal judge in San Francisco would align with California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom regarding the National Guard’s control during recent protests, which escalated into riots and violence against federal agents in Los Angeles.
The court proceedings on Thursday felt somewhat ceremonial, almost like theater.
The 9th Circuit Court offered a temporary stay for Trump’s manager to maintain control of the California State Guard. Yet, shortly after, District Judge Charles Breyer, appointed by Clinton and related to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, enacted a ruling to halt the deployment of a 4,000-member security force that had been effective in reducing violence.
However, the 9th Circuit intervened with a temporary stay on Breyer’s order, leading to a sort of legal deadlock just as tensions flared on the streets. Upcoming hearings will decide whether it’s the president or the judge that is overstepping their bounds.
Historically and legally, Trump seems to hold stronger ground. His swift actions aimed to protect lives and properties, a sentiment echoed in news reports.
Last weekend, the head of the LA police spoke out about the chaos, stating the situation was “out of control” and that his officers felt “overwhelmed.” He expressed concern that “someone could be easily killed.”
Democrats must face the laws of disorder they claim to defend. With divisive language aimed at both ICE and Trump, they set the stage for chaos.
In the face of rising violence, Newsom has struggled or opted not to suppress the mob assaults on ICE officers fulfilling their roles. As incidents escalated, President Trump called on the National Guard for necessary protection and to restore order.
When the situation in LA deteriorated further, the Secretary of Defense sent in U.S. Marines for additional support.
Predictably, Newsom sought shelter under the Democrats’ “anti-Trump lawfare” tactics, rushing to a federal court in San Francisco requesting a temporary restraining order against Trump. This has set the stage for a power struggle between state and federal authorities.
The President has a fundamental obligation to enforce the law and ensure public safety, a power grounded in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. There’s more complexity to it.
Long ago, Congress granted the President substantial powers to handle civil disturbances that impede federal law enforcement (10 USC 12406). Past presidents have leveraged these powers, especially during civil rights controversies, often without needing a governor’s approval.
Newsom lacks the authority to counter the President’s directives. Furthermore, as articulated by the Department of Justice in their brief before Judge Breyer, “there is no mob veto over federal law enforcement.”
Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the President holds the authority to mobilize the California National Guard. Once called, it’s not up to either the governor or the judge to question whether that decision is warranted, especially when national security is at stake.
The law, as reiterated by DOJ’s attorneys, considers such deployments necessary for addressing “rebellion” or enforcing U.S. law.
While Newsom argues that Trump cannot act without his consent, such stipulations are absent from the law. The statutes expressly state that the President’s orders are mandatory, not conditional on the governor’s approval. If that were the case, the law would reflect it.
Newsom wrongly claims that the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prohibits Trump from deploying forces domestically for law enforcement. This argument is unfounded. The National Guard and Marines’ primary role is to safeguard federal property and personnel, not to engage in regular law enforcement.
The President can invoke the Rebellion Act of 1807 if federal law enforcement is obstructed, and he doesn’t need to wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court to do so. This action would effectively counter efforts from the governor aimed at sabotaging federal authority, reminiscent of the applications of this law during the 1992 LA riots.
The argument surrounding California’s sovereignty is another misconception. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes that state law is secondary to federal law, including sovereignty issues. However, this does not negate the fact that federal law has precedence over conflicting state laws.
If state leaders had acted responsibly from the outset, recognizing that the protests were leaning towards violence, we might have avoided such legal disputes. Instead, they and their fellow Democrats maintained the illusion that the unrest was merely “almost peaceful,” a tired narrative echoing the sentiment during the BLM riots of 2020.
Those on the left seem to believe that Americans are too oblivious to notice the clear effects of vandalism, looting, and violence. They continue to minimize serious crimes, confusing them with petty disturbances.
Political factions, consumed by their disdain for Trump, have shifted blame onto him for enforcing laws against those who have violated them, including serious criminals. Instead of self-reflection, they redirect the narrative.
In the end, Democrats are now linked to the disorder they defend so ardently. With provocative language aimed at both ICE and Trump, they laid the groundwork for chaos.
They appear more focused on protecting undocumented individuals than ensuring the safety of innocent citizens and the law enforcement community. As the LA police chief cautioned, it’s clear that “someone could easily be killed.”
Newsom and his party have yet to provide genuine solutions to the mayhem tormenting Los Angeles.
