Federalism

Where's Republican Federalism During Trump's Urban Invasions?

A president from a party supposedly committed to restraining the federal government is now sending enforcers to cities over local objections.

|

There's no question that the federal agents arresting protesters in Portland, Oregon, are acting against the wishes of state and local authorities. The mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon both asked the Trump administration to remove its troops, and officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security refused. That reflects poorly on an executive branch in the hands of a political party supposedly committed to letting state and local governments take the lead on most issues.

The controversy began with reports of federal officers driving through the streets of Portland in unmarked minivans and arresting protesters. Some face charges, but others are briefly detained and then released.

Local officials and people in the streets may be at odds over racial tensions and police conduct, but nobody invited the feds to join the party. "Keep your troops in your own buildings, or have them leave our city," Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler told the feds last week.

"I told acting Secretary Wolf that the federal government should remove all federal officers from our streets," Oregon Governor Kate Brown said. "His response showed me he is on a mission to provoke confrontation for political purposes."

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf's response really was pretty confrontational. "The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city," Wolf said. "This siege can end if state and local officials decide to take appropriate action instead of refusing to enforce the law."

Federal officials do have the authority and responsibility to protect federal property. But Wolf's statement goes well beyond that, reiterating an "offer to assist local and state leaders to bring an end to the violence perpetuated by anarchists."

President Trump is clear, too, that federal agents are in Portland to do more than protect courthouses and office buildings.

"We're going to have more federal law enforcement—that, I can tell you," Trump remarked this week. "In Portland, they've done a fantastic job. They've been there three days, and they really have done a fantastic job in very short period of time. No problem. They grab them; a lot of people in jail. They're leaders. These are anarchists. These are not protestors. People say 'protestors'; these people are anarchists. These are people that hate our country. And we're not going to let it go forward."

What if local officials don't want the feds there?

"The governor and the mayor and the senators out there, they're afraid of these people.  That's the reason they don't want us to help them," Trump dismissively added.

Whether or not state and local officials are up to handling sometimes-violent protests on their own, dismissing their right to handle local issues their own way is remarkable for a Republican president. After all, Trump represents a political party that to this day officially prefers state and local decision-making over federal policy.

"The Constitution gives the federal government very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated; the states and the people retain authority over all unenumerated powers," states the Republican Party platform of 2016, which the GOP readopted this year. "In obedience to that principle, we condemn the current Administration's unconstitutional expansion into areas beyond those specifically enumerated, including bullying of state and local governments in matters ranging from voter identification (ID) laws to immigration, from healthcare programs to land use decisions, and from forced education curricula to school restroom policies."

It's very difficult to reconcile the Republican Party's condemnation of "unconstitutional expansion into areas beyond those specifically enumerated, including bullying of state and local governments," with an announced intention to deploy federal law enforcement agents against protesters in Portland over the protests of the governor and the mayor, and to expand federal intervention elsewhere—apparently starting with Chicago and Albuquerque‚despite local objections. It just looks like just another example of bullying to add to the list.

How do the feds justify forcing their way in? The administration hasn't said, but maybe by leveraging the expanded leeway the courts allow the federal government within 100 miles of the border, or maybe through stretched-to-the-breaking-point interpretations of other laws regarding federal authority.

State and local officials definitely aren't pleased.

"The majority of the protests have been peaceful and aimed at improving our communities. Where this is not the case, it still does not justify the use of federal forces. Unilaterally deploying these paramilitary-type forces into our cities is wholly inconsistent with our system of democracy and our most basic values," the mayors of Seattle, Atlanta, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Kansas City, Missouri, and Portland, Oregon, wrote to Wolf and Attorney General William Barr this week. "We urge you to take immediate action to withdraw your forces and agree to no further unilateral deployments in our cities."

Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner went a step further, promising that "anyone, including federal law enforcement, who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people will face criminal charges from my office."

None of this is to say that state and local officials are necessarily the best people to handle any given problem. Nothing guarantees that mayors are more competent than presidents. Protests for changes in the way law enforcement does its business are concentrated in large cities where officials presided over the creation of often abusive and largely unaccountable police departments. Those departments are now, awkwardly, tasked with keeping the cap on protests against them.

Mayor Wheeler of Portland seems particularly hapless. He's long been accused of supporting left-wing rioters, but protesters now march through the streets cursing his name. The guy can't win.

But it's not the place for the federal government to muscle aside local authorities when they don't do their jobs in ways that federal officials might prefer. "The Constitution gives the federal government very few powers, and they are specifically enumerated," as the GOP itself points out.

The need for federal restraint is especially true when the president makes it clear that partisan posturing is behind his desire to send in federal forces.

"Look at what's going on" in cities where federal agents will be sent, snorted Trump as he explained his rationale for intervention. "All run by Democrats, all run by very liberal Democrats. All run, really, by radical left."

So much for the Republican Party's espoused belief that "Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans."

NEXT: Is Giving to Biden or Trump Grounds for Getting Fired? New Poll Finds a Disturbing Number of People Who Think It Should Be

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Now, you look at the origin of the US and the constitution, it’s clear, to be sure, that the founders intended a very limited federal government with specific, enumerated powers, and reserving all other powers to the states.

    And we’ve been told, in no uncertain terms, by progressives and other fans of powerful central governments, that this is either a quaint or racist notion, either too backwards for modern nations, or the last refuge of slave holders. And, thus, anyone complaining about federal overreach could be safely and justly ignored. “Didn’t the Civil War settle this?” Is a not uncommonly heard phrase.

    The same people now call on their long forsaken states rights to complain about the federal government putting an end to illegal, violent rioting?

    There’s more than one flavor of hypocrite here.

    1. Lefties and their propagandists in the media should know that the federal government defending federal property in states is perfectly within the purview of federal power.

      Democrats know this perfectly well since they attacked federal property in South Carolina to start the Civil War in 1861.

      1. I love to bring up how Democrats started Civil War 1.0 and are starting Civil war 2.0

        Two ass whoopings in 160 years is some lesson.

        Democrats were desperate to keep slavery and maintain their agrarian ways.

        Democrats are desperate to keep slavery and maintain their agrarian ways today.

        1. My last month’s on-line earning was $17930 simply by doing a straightforward job on-line. best home primarily based on-line job to earn additional greenbacks monthly simply by doing work for optimum two to three hrs daily. I actually have joined this job concerning three months past and in my 1st month I actually have created $12k+ simply with none special on-line expertise. everyone on this earth will get this job nowadays and begin creating money on-line by simply follow details on this web site……… HERE══════►►►Money90

        2. I enjoy your commentary. And well said. Thank you.

      2. I would think that you would have an objection to how much property the federal government has.

        (now instead of responding to what I said lc will call me names)

        1. Wow you’re preemptively crying now?

            1. My sides, from laughing at your preemptive crybabying.

              1. You can stop sucking my dick now.

                1. No one cares how your boss told you that you were fired.

                  1. Dude, I’ve already shot my load. I’m turtling up. Seriously. Stop.

                    1. No one cares what your boss told you after he fired you and you started begging.

                    2. Fuck sarc stop setting him up you’re getting wrecked

                    3. His mouth and liver are used to it.

                    4. This is getting really uncomfortable. Are you sure you’re a doctor?

                    5. No one cares about your pegging experience either.

                    6. JA – 6

                      Sarc – 0 the humanity!

                    7. It’s like booze, bad for him and he can’t stop.

                    8. Says the guy who mumbles because of my dick in his mouth.

                    9. Looks like we already hit blacked out “I was hacked” version of sarcasmic.

                    10. He seems very upset that his boss fired him for mumbling.

                    11. Stop already man Sarc isn’t even moving at this point.

                    12. This is the time when I stop wrestling with the pigs, because I’m only getting dirty, and the pigs like it.

                    13. This is the time where sarcasmic runs away because he got owned.

                    14. Sanctimonious sarcasmic claims he was clean and not covered in shit when he started the day with the 2ad post of the 1st article of the day as an attack on others.

                      Fucking hilarious.

                    15. Lol I didn’t even see this, seems I’m not the only one to like punking sarc and running him off

                    16. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work on my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home.HEW Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and Follow instructions on this page…

                      ►══════► Online Income Websites

        2. You’re talking about a federal court house… not a random fucking building somewhere.

        3. I have to say I’m fine with the federal government owning less property. That said I think it’s perfectly constitutional to defend a federal courthouse. Not so much if a state tries to secede and the federal government tries to defend their courthouse, but if the state is part of this nation then federal courthouses are federal property.

          Fort Sumter is a bit different, it’s an island of the coast and not a building in a city. Can see the argument both ways. And really the firing on Fort Sumter was not an authorized shot, it was a cadet at the Citadel who fired it and started the war of northern aggression.

      3. And if the federal agents stayed on federal property and did not do anything else we would not be having this discussion.

        1. So federal agents can only act on federal property?

          When did you become such a staunch states’ rights supporter?

          1. If their stated reason is to defend federal property, then that is what they should do. If not then they are lying (which we know they are anyhow).

            1. How far out from the Federal building should they be allowed? The distance of a Molotov cocktail throw or far enough to arrest the leaders of the attack? Here is a little hint. If the people that are arresting were not committing federal crimes they would not be there. If the city or state did not allow it they would not be there. Do you think the criminal element should just be given free reign to do as they please or do you think law and order should be restored? These Democrats in the streets of the Democrat cities protesting agains the Democrats they elected and their policies would be convincing if they had not elected them and were not going to vote for them again. What do you think is wrong with them?

        2. Was unaware federal agents were barred from stepping foot outside of federal property. This is some new legality stuff here.

      4. I am not just a citizen of Seattle where representation for my values is absolutely nil, I am also a citizen of the United States and pay federal taxes (tens of thousands yearly as do many) to uphold my constitutional rights. My state is not upholding them. They have gone rouge. This isn’t federalism, it’s civil war. I know which side I’m on Reason and I refuse to side with simple demographics.

      5. Amen. Where was Lincoln’s federalism in 1861? “Federalism” is racist anyway, or so says the new ruling class.

        1. Lincoln and the constitution. Irony.

    2. Libertarians , including JD Tuccille , have long opposed growth of federal power.
      Yes progressives are hypocrites. But Tuccille is not a progressive and has been consistent on this all along.

      “There’s more than one flavor of hypocrite here.”
      Agree. They are called the Democratic party and the GOP.

    3. What hypocrisy? When Joe Biden gets elected and AOC is made Head of Homeland Security we’re going to need a committed cadre of LeninistS to carry out the will Of the central government. I’m positively delighted that Trump is showing us the way— only this time it will be up your ass— instead of some Mom from Portland— the federal boot will be kicking. Oh… man… the times we are going to have organizing you backward Kulaks into re-education camps. Better get ready to worship the collective farms’ tractor Lumpenprole.

      1. Yes, yes- Trump is showing the way

        …because Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Elian Gonzalez never happened

    4. Bingo. Again, these are their rules. They want an all powerful federal government. This is just giving them what they want.

    5. I believe states should police their own. That is a fundamental aspect of a democratic republic. I am a constitutionalist. That is only the constitution and common law has the power to constrain me or my state.

      I truly believe the president has constitutional authority to lawfully intervene in interstate criminality, including using the internet to train foment and coordinate criminal activity. But Trump hasn’t articulated that to me. Example scooping up anarchists that have crossed state lines or used the internet to train and coordinate anarchy is a lawful duty of the president. Tear gassing and rubber bullets for riot control are not. The state has the duty to protect people and buildings.

      We’ve been trying to solve this exact problem in Afghanistan and Iraq for nearly 20 years. In Portland and Seattle the bad guys know that if they intermingle with the good guys there is no way to enforce law without violating civil rights. Over their using high tech surveillance to identify bad guys and directing Humvees or van’s to collect them is the best or bad solutions.

      1. In Afghanistan, the civilians don’t have a choice.

        Everyone in the crowds here chose to be where they are, knowing full well that they will be shielding those among them committing violence.
        They are responsible for aiding the violence, and deserve whatever consequences may come their way

        1. Good point! Thanks.

          1. I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had.GFr I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

            For more details…..► Home Profit System

    6. States rights have been practically extinguished since the end of the civil war. Lincoln was a federal government totalitarian, with dictatorial powers during the civil war, who believed in an all powerful central government and a strong proponent of socialism, free tax payer moneys, for big business only. A socialist institution that lives on to this day. That is why businesses are overwhelminglly republican. Yet these same leaders of business, who believe in socialism for the rich, demonize welfare, free tax money for the poor. Some old Southerners have said the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, had more to do with states rights. The constitution guaranteed states to leave the union, yet Lincoln chose to ignore the constitution and fought a war to annex the liberated Confederate States. In Contrast, Czechs and Slovaks of the former Czechoslovakia chose to part part their own ways forming the Czechs and Slovak Republics with no so much as one ounce of spilled blood. In reality, the US constitution is just a mere antique piece of paper, an old meaningless curiosity hidden behind glass in a museum for visitors to gawk at. Since the time of Lincoln, the federal government has ignored and continues to ignore the principles of US constitution.

    7. Not mentioned much is that, in the course of burning assorted police cars, the “peaceful” protesters also stole some police guns. Possibly fully-automatic M-16 “machine guns” as some departments carry them in cruisers.

      The ATF (now ATFE) *absolutely* has jurisdiction over that — remember Waco? They have a right (and duty) to recover those stolen weapons and to arrest the perps who stole them.

      The hypocrites are those who say that the ATF ought not do this.

    8. Sheer nonsense. I suppose you think the Federal government’s interventions in the South in the late fifties and early sixties to protect blacks from discrimination and violence from lousy Democrat state governments was evil too. It is the duty of the government to protect its citizens and if irresponsible local “leaders” are deliberately not doing so, the Feds should step in.

    9. There’s more than one flavor of hypocrite here.

      No.

      Just one.

      The usual Democrat/leftist one.

      Federal officers protecting federal property IS federalism. Forcing local law enforcement to do it would be violating the federalism Republicans claim to love so much.

  2. poor unreason staff.

    The dont know what the US Constitution says.

    As someone said yesterday in the comments section. Lefties are NOT fighting for civil rights or freedoms. Lefties are fighting to install their version of a totalitarian regime in Washington DC.

    The Lefties and their media propagandists are some crafty Nazis.

    1. If only they had snappy uniforms, too.

  3. “Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf’s response really was pretty confrontational.” His response was, Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV!

    1. “”The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city,””

      Which part of that wasn’t 100% accurate?

      1. Refuse to restore order involves an incredible amount of room. One person’s ‘too aggressive efforts’ can be another person’s ‘not aggressive enough efforts.’

        I mean, tons of illegal immigration happen daily. Lots of people violate tax law. Etc., Does that mean that our national ‘political leaders refuse to enforce the law?’

        1. Wheeler explictly stood the police down fuckwit.

          1. So, every illegal thing that Trump et al has told enforcement to, say, exercise discretion or restraint, etc., means they ‘refused to restore order?’

            I mean, if they, say, directed less aggressive efforts re tax violators?

            1. “So, every illegal thing that Trump”

              We are talking about Wheeler try to stay focused, your deflection won’t work.

        2. One person’s ‘too aggressive efforts’ can be another person’s ‘not aggressive enough efforts.’

          what the city “leadership” in question has done to restore order to their cities would be classified by any group of sane and reasonably intelligent individuals (a club that was clearly too exclusive for you to gain admission to) as falling somewhere between jack and shit.

        3. Wheeler pulled all the cops out, except his bodyguards when he ventured out there to incite the crowd

  4. There’s no question that the federal agents arresting protesters in Portland, Oregon, are acting against the wishes of state and local authorities.

    There is no question that federal agents do not need the wishes of state and local authorities to arrest people on suspicion of federal crimes.

    How do the feds justify forcing their way in? The administration hasn’t said, but maybe by leveraging the expanded leeway the courts allow the federal government within 100 miles of the border, or maybe through stretched-to-the-breaking-point interpretations of other laws regarding federal authority.

    Federal agents have the authority to arrest people anywhere in the United States.

    1. What’s more, they don’t need state permission to defend federal facilities.

      All the cities were extra federal agents have been sent have federal buildings and other facilities that have been attacked by rioters.

    2. Some commenters here have theorized (in previous years) that federal agents can only conduct law enforcement operations at the invitation of the county sheriff, who could revoke such invitation and ask them to leave.

      Defending federal property is certainly a valid exception to that, but arresting random protesters off the street while the protesters were not actively attacking that federal property (or even on it) should seem quite problematic to libertarians.

      As for the Civil War precedent, Lincoln may have saved half a million lives (and respected the basic human right of secession establish in the Declaration of Independence) by peacefully negotiating the handover of federal property in the peacefully seceding states, rather than attempting to resupply and maintain bases surrounded by foreign territory.

      1. random protesters off the street

        Facts not supported by anything. In fact DHS has stated explicitly that the people theyve picked up were in relation to attacks on the court house. They simply waited for the suspect to be outside the crowds.

        What would your reaction be to them storming into a crowd for an arrest? This is a normal tactic to reduce risks of harm during arrests.

        1. Bring more officers. Make the arrests in the crowd. Arrest those who try to interfere with the arrests.

  5. I’ll break this down so that even Reason staff can understand:

    – Article III, Section 1 authorizes the federal government to establish courts to enforce federal law;

    – Article I, Section 8 includes the “necessary and proper clause,” which, among other things, authorizes the federal government to purchase land and build courthouses, as well as to protect same;

    – Article VI includes the “supremacy clause,” which provides that Federal law trumps state and local law.

    The upshot is that the federal government absolutely has the authority to enforce federal law over the objections of state and local officials. This is basic American civics, and I haven’t heard one Reason writer get it right, yet. I expect this shit from the Shikha and Elizabeth Abortion Brown, but god damn, et tu, Tuccille?

      1. It is a Faustian bargain the Reasonistas make. They want to ensure clique respectability and maintain access to cocktail parties. But, they make themselves look immature, small-minded, & worse, to the non-ideological general public.
        History is not going to look kindly on these whores.

        1. The most mature mode of argument I can think of is assuming that those that disagree with you are doing so to attend mythical ‘cocktail’ parties.

          1. Yeah but you’re a fucking dolt that thinks conflict of interest is a problem because it is hypocrisy so …yeah.

            1. Lol, ‘hey look over here at this post!’

              You might change your handle to ‘2 of clubs and 3 of hearts.’

                  1. Oh you mad!!! Fake names = super mad lololo

            2. Hey that my insult. Everyone is a dolt

          2. The most mature mode of argument I can think of is…

            …is to create sock-puppets so you can lie your sorry ass off using multiple pseudonyms.

          3. Fuck off, Jeff.

        2. It is more is that they are simpletons pretending to be libertarians who think libertarianism is basically anarchy. As long as you say fuck the police, fuck government you’re fine. They don’t believe in the tyranny of the mob whatsoever.

          1. That’s right. And that is liberalism not libertarianism. Libertarian is not middle of the road. It says liberty is the REASON. Violent riots in my city are not constitutional, legal or liberty inducing for anyone since they oppress the rights of those they intend to harm.

      2. Sullum too. It reads like editorial diktat more than anything else.

        These writers have shown in the past they’re better than this. It’s a shame.

        1. These writers have shown in the past they’re better than this. It’s a shame.

          No. What they showed in the past was that they were capable of pretending to be better than this.

    1. Not only the right to protect those Federal Buildings but an absolute responsibility to do so. More and more the Articles here are no more than the peanut gallery taking potshots.
      Easy to do but accomplishes nothing.

      How about getting more Libertarian leaning in congress and the Senate and not the Amash who backed impeachment based on lies, trampling of constitutional rights and abuse of power.

    2. Tuccille has always been one of the loudest voices here against federal overreach and is just staying with his principled stance. I think he’s wrong but I wouldn’t lump him into Shikha camp.

      1. Calling federal agents defending federal facilities overreach is in no way a principled stance.

        1. “Calling federal agents defending federal facilities overreach is in no way a principled stance”

          Except that is not all that they are doing. Trump specifically says that they are there to stop the violence in the cities- not protect federal buildings. And those agents were running around Portland last week, arresting people off federal property.

          2Chilli is specifically calling Trumps rhetoric and the actions off of federal property over-reach. Do you disagree?

          1. Trump says a lot of shit he doesn’t mean and doesn’t follow through on. So has every other president ever. Rhetoric is not and cannot be overreach.

            As to the actions off federal property.

            “And those agents were running around Portland last week, arresting people off federal property.”

            This may or may not be over reach. If they were arresting people suspected in prior attacks on federal property, that’s completely legitimate.

            There certainly isn’t enough here to demonstrate undisputable over-reach.

    3. This is basic American civics, and I haven’t heard one Reason writer get it right, yet.

      They seem to grok it pretty well when it’s about sending in the military to enforce the Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act, or about forcing florist and bakers to serve faggots. Seems the only time federal supremacy is confusing is when it doesn’t benefit violent Marxist psychopaths. You could be forgiven for thinking to yourself “Gee, maybe the people who run Reason are Marxists”.

      1. This is giving me whiplash. Trump is deferring to local officials on Covid because differing locations have different requirements. And you guys excoriate him for not doing more. The left demands nationwide shutdowns.

        Now he does something well within his authority… protecting federal buildings. And suddenly this defies federalism? He explicitly asks local authorities to ask for help in the very statements you quote.

        You people are insane.

      2. I agree.
        Reason writers need to write for liberal rags because they do not believe in the constitution applied equally

  6. “Where’s Republican Federalism”

    OMFG what kind of fucking idiot still thinks

    1) either party actually does what they claim they will

    2) accusations of hypocrisy are legitimate criticisms

    1. It’s legitimate criticism. It’s just not an effective argument.

      1. Nope. Calling someone a hypocrite attacks thirr motives, not their argument. It’s garbage and meaningless.

        1. It’s textbook ad hominem.

        2. Nonsense. Impeaching a witness is recognized. And pointing out that someone doesn’t even believe in what they’re preaching is powerful stuff.

          1. “Impeaching a witness is recognized. ”

            Not for hypocrisy you fucking moron.

            1. No, exactly for that. Conflict of interests is classic, for example.

              1. That’s not because it is hypocrisy you fucking dolt.

                1. Hypocrisy can’t involve conflict of interest? Interesting.

                  1. And now you’re doing that thing where you’re wrong and know it so you pretend I said things I didn’t.

                    Because you’re a moron.

                    1. Queen Amalthea
                      July.24.2020 at 1:24 pm

                      No, exactly for that. Conflict of interests is classic, for example.

                       Jackand Ace
                      July.24.2020 at 1:33 pm

                      That’s not because it is hypocrisy you fucking dolt.

                    2. “Hypocrisy can’t involve conflict of interest?

                      Keep digging dolt.

          2. “And pointing out that someone doesn’t even believe in what they’re preaching is powerful stuff”

            Only to children and morons.

            1. Or non-robots and Vulcans.

                1. Or non-robots and Vulcans.

                  1. yes, people too emotionally unstable to generate rational thought will have this kind of thing work on them too. Thanks for being such a shining example with all your replies.

                    1. Sorry, but humans are these things you should familiarize yourself with.

                      If there is a person who stands to gain a lot from the argument she’s making, and who, themselves, doesn’t follow the argument they are making, it’s entirely reasonable to question that argument.

                    2. Sure if youre a child or a moron.

                    1. Or non-robots and Vulcans.

                    2. No just children and morons.

    2. Right, leftists should be allowed to assault people in the streets and destroy and loot any business or property they want. Doing anything you want to anyone or anything without consequence is what liberty is all about according to the leftist libertarian mantra as espoused by Antifa and their compatriots

      1. Lightfoot in Chicago called Trump for federal help, now the peaceful protestors are targeting her residence. A bona fide progressive should’ve been willing to be tortured in the public square for “the revolution”.

        From where I stand, the never-ever functioning in society intersectionalitists melanin gender war hawks are eating the far left. The far left is then eating the free shit for gov’t, gov’t unions and immigrants or crony left ( mainstream democrats).
        https://theintercept.com/2020/07/23/shahid-buttar-campaign-allegations/

        1. 50 cops were injured defending the Columbus statue, and Lightfoot took it down last night.

          Fuck these leftists.
          Time to bring pain

    3. I used to think that only leftists considered ad hominems to be persuasive arguments. I was wrong. Trumpsters are totally down with “destroying” someone’s argument with attacks against the person. Partisan populists gonna be partisan populists.

      1. To be fair, when you’re dealing with proponents of critical race theory and postmodernism, ad hominems are appropriate because their ideas are simply gibberish.

        1. Ad hominems go like this. “You’re wrong because you’re a poo-poo head.”

          The folks you’re talking about are poo-poo heads because their arguments are shit.

          See the difference?

          1. sarcasmic
            July.24.2020 at 12:15 pm
            Ad hominems go like this. “You’re wrong because you’re a poo-poo head.” “Fuck off Tulpa”

            FTFY drunky.

              1. “sarcasmic
                July.24.2020 at 11:59 am
                I used to think that only leftists considered ad hominems to be persuasive arguments. I was wrong”

                Sarc giving me another win.

                1. For the last time, but feel free to have the last word… Fuck off Tulpa

                  1. Realized I was right again lol

        2. And we’re in the MIDDLE of the fuck8ng 21st century! Only communists are playing this race game.

      2. Complains about ad hominem while yelling Trumpster. Fucking various.

        Sanctimonious yet once more.

          1. Trumpster isn’t an ad hominem. If I said “You’re argument is dumb because you’re a Trumpster,” then that would be an argument against the person. I’m saying that Trumpsters feel, like progressives, that ad hominems are persuasive arguments.

            And you react with a personal attack. Way to reinforce my point. Trumpster.

            1. Trumpster isn’t an ad hominem.

              Yes it is, idiot. Note that I didn’t say your argument was wrong because you’re an idiot.

  7. >>A president from a party

    T has little to do with D.C.’s (R). Most of American (R) has little to do with D.C.’s (R)

  8. Federal buildings parks and monuments are not state property so yes the federal government can send in their own security to enforce the law.

    State governments and city councils like Portland are obviously too scared to stand up and do the job.

    Reason doesn’t seem to understand the difference.

  9. I agree that federal LEOs should be restricted to their proper roles (mind, I don’t think they should exist at all, but here in the real world I must deal with them existing). If the mayors don’t want any help, fine–then they completely own the results, I hope they realize.

    Now, unlike our leftist friends, I want this policy to apply all the time.

    1. And if it is found that these people who were arrested were not placing federal buildings at risk, or that they were not violating any federal statute, they will be released. That’s how the system works.

      People are arrested for suspicion of violating bullshit laws all the time, usually by local police. That’s a problem, for sure. It extends into the federal sphere, where it is a valid question whether most federal laws, federal agencies, and federal enforcers should exist in the first place. That’s not, though, the discussion we’re presently having.

      If there are federal laws on the books that are being violated, one can expect federal agents to be sent to enforce them. Making the order to send the agents is not the problem, if one perceives that there is a problem… it’s that the law exists in the first place. If it is injustice to enforce a given law, then that law needs to be repealed. It is not good enough to ignore the law and pretend it’s not there, until the powers that be decide that they want to use it to “get” someone. If that is what is going on, let us consider the unjust federal law and let us have the debate about whether that law should exist or not.

      If there is no such federal law, the protesters (or rioters, or whatever they are) will be set free. If they were arrested with the enforcers knowing that the arrestees were doing nothing illegal, it’s abuse of power and police harassment, and that’s definitely a bad thing, but it’s no worse when performed by federal agents than by local ones, who engage in such behavior about as often as a rat squeaks in a sewer scene in a movie. We live in what is close to a damned police state… of course this stuff happens constantly, and of course it is a problem. I’m just not going to pretend it’s somehow worse for the federal agents to be doing it than local ones.

  10. Trump’s urban invasions are mostly peaceful

    That is like the third time I’ve made that joke and I’m getting bored of it. Is this how brainwashing works? Trying to win an endurance race against absurdity and losing after it stops being funny?

    1. most murders are mostly peaceful most of the time.

  11. “Trumps urban invasions”
    What a weaselly statement.
    They’re protecting federal fucking buildings, the taxpayers property, because insane lefty mayors won’t stop the Peaceful Protesters from trying to burn federal employees alive in them. Maybe the federal government shouldn’t have built them in the first place, but allowing spoiled monsters to burn them isn’t a viable option either.

    Mayor Wheeler of Portland seems particularly hapless. He’s long been accused of supporting left-wing rioters, but protesters now march through the streets cursing his name. The guy can’t win.
    He’s as hapless as Robespierre and Trotsky. He willfully fed the wolves and shouldn’t be surprised when they turn back on him.

    1. “but allowing spoiled monsters to burn them isn’t a viable option either.”

      For the most part I agree with your comment. I just want to say I think your giving the rioter’s too much benefit of the doubt here.

    2. The only evidence presented of Trump’s Urban Invasion is
      “The controversy began with reports of federal officers driving through the streets of Portland in unmarked minivans and arresting protesters. Some face charges, but others are briefly detained and then released.”
      There is nothing illegal described here except the unverified claim that these people are merely “protesters”. I would suggest that all of this could be legitimately tied to the very real assault on the federal courthouse and the agents defending it. The rioters are all wearing masks and I would be willing to bet that the feds have very sophisticated video of these individuals. If they believe they know the whereabouts of a perpetrator in is not a violation of states rights for them to track these people down and hold them for questioning. If the evidence does not support charges they are released. If the evidence supports a federal crime, they are arrested.
      Very disappointing. again, for Reason to simply regurgitate a lefty theory when the evidence is so thin. As reported even here the Portland police have been told to stand down and not cooperate with federal cops. The feds really have no choice except to track down individuals they believe have committed federal crimes.
      I’m not a big fan of cops and I’ve never been a fan of Brett Kavanaugh but I know bullshit when I see it and Reason is drowning in it right now just like they did then.

    3. They eat themselves because there is never enough purity until there is blood

  12. the federal government is now sending enforcers to cities over local objections

    Like Little Rock? (IIRC)

    1. Sort of, except it was Army Rangers from the 101st Airborne.

      If Trump did that, heads would explode.

  13. “That reflects poorly on an executive branch in the hands of a political party supposedly committed to letting state and local governments take the lead on most issues.”

    I agree, but does it not also reflect poorly on state and local authorities who belong to a political party committed to having the federal government take the lead on everything?

  14. “Bro the communists are getting arrested bro you have to really care please bro what about freedom bro yeah I know these people hate you and would hurt you and your family and take your shit if they had the chance but please bro please care what about libertarian values bro please bro what if you’re next dude think about it man go fight it out with ex-special forces and ranger batt guys so we can free the demiqueer non-binary anarchocommunists bro who’s going to do drag queen story hour or get you fired for your tweets bro come on man be real.”

    1. Bwahahahahahaha

  15. Look, as long as democrats exist and are bad it is not fair to criticize republicans about anything. When will the Reasonistas figure this out?

    1. “Bro the communists are getting arrested bro you have to really care please bro what about freedom bro yeah I know these people hate you and would hurt you and your family and take your shit if they had the chance but please bro please care what about libertarian values bro please bro what if you’re next dude think about it man go fight it out with ex-special forces and ranger batt guys so we can free the demiqueer non-binary anarchocommunists bro who’s going to do drag queen story hour or get you fired for your tweets bro come on man be real.”

      1. They want to destroy us and our way of life and then put us in chains, but we should totally stick up for them.

        1. Well… yes, we should, if people are being harassed merely for exercising their right to free expression. Even if they spout a hateful, un-American, thoroughly reprehensible vision, they have the right to do so. If they are being arrested for doing only that, and not because of some suspicion of violation of a federal law, that’s obviously a problem, just as it is on a daily basis when the state and local authorities do it.

          If they are being arrested for legitimate violations of federal law, then either that law is justified and the arrests were just, or the law is unjust and the arrests were thus unjust, which points to a need to remove the law. Using selective enforcement to nullify the law until someone wants to use it is not a solution, and is antithetical to the rule of law.

  16. I’m thoroughly disgusted at the Reason writers looking at the ongoing violence and destruction with not a single word of approbation against that, but try enforce consequences against people violating the NAP and destroying other’s property and that’s a bridge too far for them.

    To the Reason staff – Fuck you you marxist sympathizing cunts. If you don’t see what’s wrong with your priorities here you are part of the problem. If hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and how many murders let alone assaults to date still qualify as “peaceful protest” to you then I don’t want to see what it would take to not qualify as peaceful in your minds…oh, wait that’s scary non-leftists protesting and causing zero murders, zero assaults and zero property damage.

    1. Thats the problem.
      Americans still want to play by the rules.
      Leftists don’t.
      Well, fuck the rules.
      Let the leftists drown in their own blood, because they won’t stop until they get totalitarian power otherwise

    2. I completely agree. Seeing this wildly-slanted coverage, using the word “protestors” to describe violent mobs who assault people and attempt to break into the courthouse every night, makes me embarrassed to be a paying subscriber.

      1. Yet meanwhile the “protest” is now Disneyesque, thanks to corporations and their media. Talk about a reason to crush the revolt.

    3. “To the Reason staff – Fuck you you marxist sympathizing cunts.”

      The voice of Reason!

      1. No wonder you think ad homs are legit arguments.

        1. Yes, I don’t think simply cursing someone is an effective argument. I guess that means I think ad homs are legit.

          How’s Bizzaro world?

          1. “I guess that means I think ad homs are legit.”

            “The voice of Reason!”

            Forgot you said that I guess?

            1. Lol.

              X “I think ___!.”
              Y “You’re a stupid cunt!”
              Y “That’s quite a reasonable argument!”
              Esmeralda: “Hey, Y, why so much ad hom!”

              1. Z “That’s quite a reasonable argument!”

                1. Ok so you impeached yourself through your hypocrisy, you can fuck off now!

                  1. No hypocrisy there 2and 3.

                    1. Lol and you didn’t even realize you did it!!!

                2. My favorite smackdowns are when I slap someone so hard that they pretend they said something other than what they said because they know what they said fucks them.

                  Like you did there for example.

                  1. Sorry for your feelings, but I’ve exactly accurately described the situation.

                  2. You seem very upset that I smacked the fuck out of you.

              2. So you’re just going to ignore the actual argument both before and after the section you want to take umbrage with…seems legit. If you don’t have an argument then whine about being mean.

    4. Right. “Libertarians” who do not stand up for private property rights and liberty for ALL citizens (not CRIMINALS) are liberals in disguise.
      This is what I accuse Reason of every time I read it because I think their writers are extremely confused.

  17. The issue is not so much that the feds are involved, it’s how quickly we are being pushed into wanting fed involvement.

    I still maintain that the FBI is controlling Antifa and the Police unions and driving the herd to the cliff. That cliff being MORE DHS. MORE FBI, and much much less civilian control over law enforcement.

    To this end I ask this question. If in the process of becoming a state, the state takes control of federal property, by what authority does the federal government own ANY domestic property outside of DC?

    I don’t think we want or need federal courthouses or federal law enforcement at all other than border patrol. Aren’t the federal courthouses a product of prohibition?

    The local sheriff can uphold federal law where it pertains to defending the US Constitution. What do we need feds for?

    1. “To this end I ask this question. If in the process of becoming a state, the state takes control of federal property, by what authority does the federal government own ANY domestic property outside of DC?”

      The federal government can acquire land in existing states with state consent.

      However, when a new state is created, the state does not automatically take over all federal land in the territory of the new state.

      A lot of the federal land in the western states was never ceded to state control.

      “Aren’t the federal courthouses a product of prohibition?”

      No, there was federal criminal law long before prohibition.

      “The local sheriff can uphold federal law where it pertains to defending the US Constitution. What do we need feds for?”

      No, your local sheriff and/or local police do not inherently have authority/jurisdiction to enforce federal law.

      1. P.S.

        The first US Federal law enforcement agency, the US Marshals Service was established by George Washington in 1789.

        1. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service dates its founding to 1772 when Postmaster Ben Franklin appointed a “surveyor” to audit and regulate the mail. They were also the first law enforcement agency to ever refer to their sworn officers as “special agents”.

          The idea that the Founding Fathers and their vision for the USA didn’t include federal law enforcement is a grossly misinformed interpretation of history.

          1. “The U.S. Postal Inspection Service dates its founding to 1772”

            1. Cite required.
            2. Even if it’s true that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service makes that claim, I would remain skeptical, because that would pre-date not only the Articles of Confederation, but the Declaration of Independence and the start of the American Revolution.

      2. I know the local police do not but I believe the sheriff can impose federal laws that defend the constitution such as title 18 241 and 242. Is that correct?

        Thank you for your civility, insight and answers.

        1. No it is not correct. Sheriffs are state officials, not federal officials. The enforce state and county law, not federal law.

          It would be unconstitutional for the US Congress to require state officials to enforce federal law.

          While it is possible for Congress to authorize state officials to optionally enforce federal law, you would have to point to a specific federal law authorizing that, and even then, State law in the given state would also have to authorize it before a sheriff could act to enforce federal law.

          1. By the way, title 18 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law is something that would be enforced by federal agents (probably FBI) against your local sheriff.

    2. I’m sorry. Do I live in a state or a country? Which is part of which? I am not beholden to my state at the expense of my nation. I can SUE my state for violating my US constitutional rights. What is going on in your mind?

  18. 21)I don’t know what to say really what you share is so good and helpful to the community, I feel that it makes our community much more developed, thanks. Heres what I do…Heres what I do …. Heres what I do۔۔۔۔۔Read More.

  19. I agree that the federal police can only protest the federal buildings from inside the buildings. So, after making a big deal out of how he is trying but failing to protect federal property in Progressive Portland, Trump should say that he is willing to allow the Progressive mayor and governor assume responsibility. Take out all documents and computers from the buildings, lock the doors, and walk away.
    What happens next should be a clear, very visual, demonstration of what will happen if the Democrats are put in power everywhere. Biden has already expressed support for the ‘demonstrators’ and will have to dance very fast after the fires.

  20. Reason writers have often been sympathetic to the protestors who include significant numbers of looters and vandals destroying private property. They’ve been consistently hostile to the police who have attempted to stop this in a reasonably contained manner. They are hostile to the Federal government agents arresting vandals defacing Federal property.

    It appears that the Reason writers lean towards anarchism more than libertarianism. Libertarianism relies on a strong court system and strong protection of property rights. Supporting vandals damaging Federal courthouses (and hundreds of private businesses) are not consistent with any kind of libertarianism.

    1. It appears that the Reason writers lean towards anarchism more than libertarianism.

      And this is being exceedingly generous in ignoring Reason’s theft of bases/mask slipping defense of civil libertarianism/cultural Marxism.

      “We don’t believe that the State should be in the business of issuing marriage licenses, but Kim Davis earned her ticket to jail. The law is the law. Can’t have marriage license anarchy.”

      “We don’t believe that the State should be in the business of dictating who uses which restrooms, but S. Carolina’s law just makes sense. The law is the law. Can’t have bathroom anarchy.”

      “We don’t believe that the State should be in the business of regulating regional protests one way or the other, but Trump’s use of Federal troops is clearly against unwritten law. ‘Burning-shit-down’ anarchy should be tolerated.”

      1. They don’t lean toward anarchism. They lean toward the left.

    2. It’s not anarchism, it’s nihilism.

  21. What if local officials don’t want the feds there?

    They can express their displeasure appropriately. It’s a free country!

  22. The controversy began with reports of federal officers driving through the streets of Portland in unmarked minivans and arresting protesters. Some face charges, but others are briefly detained and then released.

    It is a human tragedy.

    But in all seriousness, I completely agree that federal agents should not be roving around the streets quelling these riots. This is a job for the local authorities to fuck up– which they have. What evidence is there that the federal authorities ARE doing this? Aren’t they just sticking to the federal properties? That seems well within their jurisdiction.

    1. Then why do I pay federal taxes? Forget the federal reserve, of course I get it but I am not state property

  23. “The majority of the protests have been peaceful and aimed at improving our communities.

    Oh, and these mayors, especially Durkan and Wheeler are lying sacks of shit. Wheeler’s Portland officially submitted into evidence a video showing how violent the protesters were to stop an injunction from Don’t Shoot Portland, attempting to block the use of tear gas. “The guy can’t win” indeed.

    1. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>ReadMore.

    2. “these mayors, especially Durkan and Wheeler are lying sacks of shit.”

      Not congenital straight shooters like, say, Trump or Fox.

      1. It’s telling that you didn’t even try to refute the contention that “Durkan and Wheeler are lying sacks of shit.”

        1. I’m sure I could have perused Fox stories and Trump twitter tweets first, right?

          1. It’s telling that you still didn’t even try to refute the contention that “Durkan and Wheeler are lying sacks of shit” and seem desperate to make this about Fox and Trump.

            1. Hmm, where does the idea Wheeler and Durkan are lying’ come from?

                1. You were there?

                  1. You’re too stupid to read?

                    No, actually I buy that. It makes all your posts make sense.

              1. The City of Portlan… we’ll call it “Wheeler’s Portland” since we live in “Trump’s America” submitted into evidence this video and an attempt to counter an injunction by Don’t Shoot Portland to stop the use of Tear Gas.

                This video was submitted a few weeks ago.

                The video was used as evidence by Wheeler’s Portland in a specific attempt to show how violent and dangerous the riots have become. This is in the midst of Ted Wheeler’s continuous refusal to directly address the riots, while describing everything as “mostly peaceful”.

                Durkan’s lying is all over the public record, with her early CHAZ tweets that have not… shall we say… aged well– especially after the CHAZ, to which she gave material support, started piling up a body count of young unarmed black men.

              2. Ted Wheeler on Tear Gas:

                “The city of Seattle late today banned the use of tear gas for 30 days except limited circumstances,” Wheeler told the crowd over shouts of “We’re not Seattle.”

                “We should do the same, tomorrow, my colleagues and I will be making an announcement…” Wheeler said through the bullhorn [to the protesters]

                Then a short time later:

                Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler at a Friday protest hinted at a possible ban on the Portland Police Bureau’s use of tear gas. But he walked back on that Saturday, issuing a statement saying he has directed police to only use the gas if there is no other alternative.

                I suspect the journalist who wrote ‘hinted at a ban’ is soft on Wheeler. Because from my reading, he didn’t ‘hint at a ban’, be basically told the crowd through his bullhorn that his response would be stronger than Seattle’s.

                He’s a lying fucking liar who lies.

                B…but what about what Ronald Reagan did?!!! *runs out of room crying*

                1. So I hear Mayor banned police from use of pretty much anything to control a crowd, as well as body armor and helmets.
                  Unsurprisingly, protests are planned tonight.
                  Should go well

      2. Not congenital straight shooters like, say, Trump or Fox.

        So “Wheeler and Durkan couldn’t clean up this mess because Trump is dishonest.” is the position you’re gonna take?

    3. By the “mostly peaceful” trope it’s completely legitimate to wonder why Ted Bundy was put in prison, after all he lived a life that was “mostly peaceful”. Postmodernism in all it’s expressions is a mental illness.

  24. So protecting Federal property from destruction is “urban invasion” now. Looks like newspeak is here to stay.

    1. Damn. I’ve been using the old definitions where urban invasion precedes urban flight. I just can’t keep up.

    2. Similar to “credible” accusation.

    3. These Feds in Portland are double-plus ungood.

  25. It’s very difficult to reconcile the Republican Party’s condemnation of “unconstitutional expansion into areas beyond those specifically enumerated, including bullying of state and local governments,” with an announced intention to deploy federal law enforcement agents against protesters in Portland over the protests of the governor and the mayor, and to expand federal intervention elsewhere—apparently starting with Chicago and Albuquerque‚ despite local objections.

    No, it really isn’t.

    10 U.S. Code § 253 is explicitly enacted pursuant to Congresses’ power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment to make laws to see to the enforcement of section 1 of that amendment, the obligation of a state to provide equal protection of the laws.

    It provides that whenever the constituted authorities of a state refuse to protect a right of any part or class of its people, that right being named in the Constitution, the President may use any means to take “such measures as he considers necessary to suppress . . . domestic violence” that is violating that right.

    So the refusal of the local officials to act isn’t, in fact, a Constitutional problem for Federal action. It is, instead, exactly what authorizes Federal action. If enforcement of laws against property destruction (property being a named right in the Constitution) were suspended universally in a state, then there would be no denial of “equal protection of the laws” in that state, and thus no violation of the 14th Amendment and no cause for Federal action.

    But doing it on a selective basis (riots allowed in Portland, but not wealthy suburbs thereof)? Enumerated Federal power, baby.

    1. It’s more like suppressing insurrection at this point. If Trump is reelected (which gets more likely the longer the riots continue and the Democrats laud the rioters), I expect Washington, Oregon and California to secede and establish Leftopia on the West Coast. Conservatives in those states will flee to Idaho, Arizona and Nevada.

      1. Nevada? Yuck. All those Democrats? Try Arkansas!

        1. So Nevada put you on the registry.

      2. ^^ THIS — Can’t believe I had to read this far to find it
        “suppressing insurrection” —
        Federal Authority?
        Right there in the Enumerated Powers Article 1 Section 8
        “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”
        There’s a “protest” and then there is CHAZ insurrection.

        1. Wouldn’t it be fun if Trump did call the militia?
          And I’m not talking about the national guard, who are bound by RoE…

      3. Reconstruction on the Left Coast should be exciting to watch.

      4. 10 U.S. Code § 253 is, in fact, one of the sections of 10 U.S. Code Chapter 13 – INSURRECTION.

        However, § 251 requires a request by the state, and § 252 only provides for the use of the militia and armed forces. § 253, invoking the 14th Amendment, is the part that allows use of “other means” to deal with “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy”.

  26. I have earned $ 18394 last month by W0rking Online from home. I am a full time college student and just doing this Job in my part time for maximum 2 hrs a day using my laptop. This Job is just awesome and regular earning from this easy home Job is much times better than other regular 9 to 5 office Jobs. I suggest you all to join this right now and start earning easily by just follow details on the given WebSite……..
    here……. ⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢ Click Here For Full Detail.

  27. “But it’s not the place for the federal government to muscle aside local authorities when they don’t do their jobs in ways that federal officials might prefer.”

    Gawdamb straight. Blame Eisenhower and federalizing the National Guard to enforce school integration. Blame Lincoln too for blatantly trampling states’ rights. And the SCOTUS who regularly impose their decisions on the states. And the gawddamb Forrest Service and their national parks system which created artificial autonomous zones within existing states.

  28. This article written by a seventh grader. Adults understand what is happening in this situation.

  29. Federal intervention to protect a federal courthouse from being destroyed by anarchists. The nerve!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  30. Now would be a good time for Reason to publish an article about how privatized police forces might handle rioting communists.

    https://reason.com/video/dont-abolish-the-police-privatize-them/

    1. Aggrieved property and business owners could take surveillance video to a common law court to get an arrest warrant for the arsonists and vandals responsible. The warrants could be enforced by bounty hunters who could bring in the suspected criminals, who would then be tried before an impartial jury of their peers. If convicted they would be forced to make restitution to the owners, or appropriately sentenced to a penal colony to earn more cash if unable to pay the fines.

      1. Can you provide an example of where a functioning system like that is in place or has been successfully attempted?

        Because I suspect the competing security forces you envision might inadvertently over time evolve/descend into star chambers, kangaroo courts, prison camps, mercenary gangs and death squads — or maybe worse, coalesce into a single territorial entity that claims a monopoly on the use of force.

        BTW, in absence of “legitimate” agencies acting in at least an ostensibly transparent manner under color of law, I suspect those who don’t agree to the particulars of your social contract will start setting up their own local soviets, secret police and gulags to deal with their revolution’s enemies as they see fit.

        Shit, come to think of it — you convinced me (or maybe I convinced myself). Trump should call off the feds and instead deputize state-by-state regiments of private law-enforcement militia to put down the totalitarian neo-Marxist insurrection in Portland or anywhere else in the country where one is popping up.

      2. Yeah, fuck that slaver.

    2. I agree with Reason on that. I’ve got a house full of firearms, a few thousand rounds of ammunition, some rangefinders, a little knowledge about improvised explosives.

      Who wants to put together a private security force to handle this situation? Anyone? I’ve got some calls in to find out who that guy was in the CHAZ that did more to straighten that shit out in ten minutes than the city of Seattle could do all day. Also a call in to the guy who disarmed the Skinny Jeans dude to was firing the AR 15 during the downtown peaceful riots.

      Oh, that’s not what was meant by ‘privatized police force’? You meant one that’s sanctioned by the government and holds a monopoly, but is managed by Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos. Oh THAT kind of privatized force… Never mind then. Carry on.

      1. You want to brandish lethal weapons at peaceful protestors, like the McCloskeys, about whose malicious prosecution Reason is spilling so little ink?

        1. Do you want to go on record supporting a dumpy, rich white couple when you’re trying to attract Millennials and Gen Z to your cause? We’ve got an image to uphold here.

          1. Federal property is public property – ie. the property of all US citizens.

            Rather than relying on Federal officials to protect that courthouse maybe some of us non-Portlanders could go pay a visit to the Mayor’s house, or the Governor mansion and visit upon them what is being visited upon that building. I’m sure that would get a different response from state and local officials.

            Probably make JD shit his Royal Robbins.

        2. “I agree with Reason on that. I’ve got a house full of firearms, a few thousand rounds of ammunition, some rangefinders, a little knowledge about improvised explosives.”

          Yep.

          I was taught that I don’t point a rifle at anything I don’t intend to destroy.

          Brandish isn’t in my lexicon. I cannot imagine pointing a firearm to frighten anyone. If a firearm is needed, the time for talk is over. I don’t expect my target to be frightened. They should be dead long before they get that chance.

  31. You must be channeling Clement Vallandigham in posting this. Neo-Confederates re-enact Ft Sumpter in Portland, attacking Federal property and Federal agents sent to protect it. Trump responds by sending Federal reinforcements. Thanks for the Copperhead post. Good thing Lincoln (and Trump) are made of sterner stuff.

  32. Where’s Republican Federalism During Trump’s Urban Invasions?

    *bites lip, wipes tear from eye*

    Damn you, fuck of Tuccille.

    Maybe you missed the part where things were left to Wheeler, Merkley, Derkan, and Wyden for weeks on end? Moreover, show where Trump and Federal agents have usurped the above’s authority?

    Even 100% agreeing with you that the FedGov should do absolutely nothing with regard to Portland and/or Seattle, when and where do you think the FedGov should step in? If communists openly loyal to the PRC take over Seattle while the Mayor and Governor who are also openly loyal to the PRC’s ideals do nothing, do we just cede the city a la Hong Kong? Do you think you’d get elected on that platform? Do you think you *should* get elected on that platform?

    You used to be smarter than this.

  33. Trump is not, and has never been conservative; thus he ignores Federalism when it doesn’t suit his purpose. The people who founded this nation knew what they were doing when they elected not to have a national police force. Concentrating all the firepower at one level of government was dangerous, and they knew it.

  34. “Political pressure, demonstrations and advocacy are part of how people in America disrupt the status quo and meaningfully move governments towards social change,” the council president added. “Our collective efforts, however, cannot devolve into personal attacks, intimidation or potential violence.”

    You know just said that? Seattle City Council president Lorena Gonzales. You know why she said it.

    ‘Cause the peaceful protesters have started showing up at their homes.

    Juarez didn’t immediately comment Tuesday. Pedersen sees “common ground … to dramatically reimagine policing” and respects protests but objected to “harassment and vandalism” at his home that included profanities written on his door and on windows, he said.

    […]

    “Demonstrations are a protest tool but using that tool to create an environment by which people and their family members feel unsafe in their own homes is not something I can support,” she added, urging protesters and her colleagues to engage with each other in other ways.

    1. Seattle and Portland are such political hegemonies at this point, that the only targets left for these retarded golems are the slightly-less radical politicans they voted into office.

  35. As the crowd burned and looted a city block, within the crowd could be heard half a dozen people singing “We shall overcome.”

    Mostly peaceful.

    1. Is that like being mostly pregnant?

    2. Such pretentiousness. The fuck are they overcoming, exactly? They can’t even overcome their own mental illness or a few tacticools guarding a federal courthouse. They had to deploy a bunch of “moms” to use as human shields, and even that fell flat.

      They’ve been indulged with nearly two months of rioting and shit-stirring, and suddenly when they get the slightest bit of pushback from the Mommy Government whose hands they wanted all the guns consolidated, they’re the fucking Civil Rights movement? GTFO.

  36. Hey JD, look up the term “useful idiot”. It’s sad to see Reason’s writers spiral into full blown TDS. At least they’re not pretending to be Libertarians any longer. Just another branch of the MSM.

    At least the commenters are worth reading. Except for Jeffy, Tony and Tulpa. And POS Rev Kirkland.

    1. What I see it as, is they’re essentially the liberal professors at the University of Tehran in 1978. Their blinders are are causing them to support and enable a movement that’s completely anti-individual freedom. And it’s a movement that won’t be kind to them if and when it runs the institutions as it seeks to do. They support this violent, dangerous movement merely because it seeks to depose the Shah of Iran.

      Yes, the Shah is a problem, the government has problems, there are structural issues that need to be addressed, but be very careful when you support a movement that “wants to tear (burn, actually if Twitter is my guide) it all down.”

      It’s been correctly noted that it’s much easier make a system worse than it is to make it better.

      1. Keep in mind what happened after that revolution, too–the college students who kicked it off ended up getting suppressed by the new religious leaders, and then they got thrown in to a stupid, bone-crunching war of attrition with Iraq.

        1. so you’re saying there is an upside in the aftermath?

  37. It’s the part of the Constitution that states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. . .” When you have little Antifa and BLM terrorists setting up their own zones, with their own crazy laws, it’s the responsibility of the federal government to act, if the State will not. The people who live under the rule of these terrorists are United States citizens and are promised something much better.

  38. So if a mob that’s politically affiliated with my local government starts destroying my home what am I supposed to do? The same local government that is preventing the local police from enforcing the law will have me arrested if I try to protect my property. And somehow I’m supposed to be outraged that the Feds are stepping in to enforce the law?

    What the hell has happened to Reason?

    1. I’m in a mob that’s forcing me to attend weekly racial sensitivity training. It’s called a Fortune 500 company.

  39. The problem with mob rule libertarianism is that it ignores the realization there are more than one mob. May the best tribe win.

  40. I’ll support removing federal officers when you support allowing someone to kill anyone who infringes upon public or private property that they wish to protect as well as to sue any and all public officials and local police who reneg on their responsibility to protect us.

  41. In response to the headline,

    We were dodging bear spray, mace, firebombs, concrete milkshakes, punches, and kicks from the good hard working citizens of Portland.

    Insurrection isn’t a demonstration, nor is it a riot.

  42. Hey JD,

    Why is it always the masked, violent wing of the Democratic Party that runs afoul of Federal law enforcement?

    1. Because Hillary and her ilk can bribe their way out?

  43. Mr. Sullum…..Scant mention of the rights of the people victimized by these rioters. Why is that? Don’t people have the right to be secure in their homes, and enjoy the peace and quiet of their homes? Sure, protesting is an important right. So is enjoying my home, unencumbered by a bunch of rioting assholes.

    For nearly two months, what has Portland and OR done to put an end to the riots? Particularly hapless, you say? Are you kidding me? Grossly negligent is a much more accurate description. If the government cannot protect life, liberty and property…why do we need government?

    Peaceful, boisterous protest is fine. Rioting and mayhem is not.

    1. My apologies to Mr. Tuccille!

    2. For fucks sake; establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide common defence, establish general welfare… it’s a majority of the Goddamned preamble. I certainly agree that the goals can be overrated but if the Government, any government, can’t stop peoples’ shit from being set on fire then why not just kill people in the street? Why give two shits if federal agents do/don’t? As long as the federal agents aren’t shooting me and/or setting my property on fire, they’re the lower priority.

      The statement “There are no libertarians in a foxhole.” turns out to be true. Not because libertarians give up their principles under fire (except that they largely do) but because there are no markets on a battle field and the NAP doesn’t make sense when the *only* way to secure property is by initiating violence.

      1. Threatening property is aggression. Property rights are important. While it could be argued that the feds have way too much property (I’d certainly agree), it’s not correct to say that as long as the goal is to only destroy stuff and not people, that the ‘libertarian’ thing to do would be to stand aside and watch.

        1. While it could be argued that the feds have way too much property (I’d certainly agree), it’s not correct to say that as long as the goal is to only destroy stuff and not people

          Basally, the symbolic and abject destruction of property is an anathema to libertarianism, even the more liberal and anarchic forms. There are strategic cases where some destruction is necessary, but then it’s not symbolic nor necessarily abject. What are the rioters going to achieve by overtaking the courthouse? Was their originally a plan to overtake it or did their random and/or expansive acts of destruction just happen to stumble across it? Seems to me they didn’t care about the courthouse until the Feds started defending it. Like a 2-yr.-old claiming that the seat his brother is currently sitting in is really his.

          Once you’re destroying property as an overt sign of aggression and nothing else, from a libertarian perspective, you might as well be advocating bombing weddings in the ME.

  44. The federal government enforcement of civil rights violations are out now or are they only okay when they are police consent decrees

  45. Is this the online Zoom meeting for libertarians for Federal Troops Marching Down our Streets Convention? I think I’m in the right place.

    1. If by “Federal Troops Marching Down our Streets” you mean federal troops defending a federal court building from getting burned down, then this is the convention you’re looking for.

      Btw, notice how those nasty federal troops politely arrested folks, without any un-necessary violence. Arrest warrants were served, nobody was held excessively in detention and they were quickly processed and released. You do agree that federal “troops” can arrest people outside of a federal building right?

    2. “Bro the communists are getting arrested bro you have to really care please bro what about freedom bro yeah I know these people hate you and would hurt you and your family and take your shit if they had the chance but please bro please care what about libertarian values bro please bro what if you’re next dude think about it man go fight it out with ex-special forces and ranger batt guys so we can free the demiqueer non-binary anarchocommunists bro who’s going to do drag queen story hour or get you fired for your tweets bro come on man be real.”

  46. A doctrinaire libertarian might insist that government shouldn’t exist at all.

    For those who accept that it does, though, defense of its own property from thieves and vandals is consistent with libertarian ideals. One can question whether the people being “detained” are actually guilty of assault on federal property, but that detail doesn’t seem relevant to most of their defenders, which tells me that they are guilty and don’t think it should matter.

  47. Saw there was a plan to send like 150 of the feds to Chicago.

    Lot of good that is going to do.

    Better plan is to just pay off the Latin Kings. There are about 10,000 of them and they outgun the feds. Maybe a couple million in cash to end the riots would do it.

    Look Chicago has always been run by gangsters. It is a tradition there. Some of them call themselves the government or police but there is little difference. The successful ones know very well how to maintain order.

    1. Paying off the Latin Kings really would kick off the Race War. Hispanic gangs are notoriously efficient at genociding their black rivals when they feel like it, because they have independent funding sources outside the country who can nurture a territorial conflict to fruition.

      1. Ok pay off the Crips too.

      2. Actually in Chicago it would be Gangster Disciples, not Crips.

        My comment is tongue in cheek. If there is a more serious side it is that there is always something to be learned from tactics of criminal organizations. How do they do it? Can the opposition “us” use similar tactics? This goes from the level of nation state hackers down to the levels of drug cartels, gangsters, and others who use means to circumvent standard defense.

        So intel is key. I do not want to just slam you in prison, I want to know everything.

        Saw an article up recently on a military blog I like. The author, a military analyst, wrote an article proposing something learned from the drug runners. It concerned building cheap semi submersibles the way the cartels do as a way of supplying marines and other forces in contested environments.

        None of this is new in thinking about how to counter act threats. My thought was the gangs who run Chicago know how. So did the gangsters of yesterday. My opinion is that a show force of heavy armed feds is not going to help. You need people who know what is really going on.

        Race is not so much the issue. It is more tribal than that.

  48. Feds have authority to send officers to states to address federal crime. If the local government sides with insurrectionists and won’t help local police, it’s entirely appropriate for feds to assist them.

    Reason and the hapless media are playing out a scene in action movies where the smug and elitist federal officers tell the local sheriff to “tell your people not to get in our way, you’re not getting the job done”. In real life, local police put in charge of these cities are outmatched and abandoned by their political leaders.

    The federal officers are not occupying army. They are your fellow Americans. They have friends and families. Some may cross the line while enforcing the law. That would be moot point if governors and mayors could do anything about 50 straight days of rioting. Reason makes heroes and saints out of immigrants because some of them will package crawfish at processing plants on the cheap, but they dehumanize federal officers arriving to protect federal courthouses.

    Anarchy within certain order is fine. A society that runs on anarchy itself is not libertarian. A city cannot have 50 days of rioting and say “Well putting this down is our job and it’ll just drag on as long as we can’t come up with the perfect solution”. All of these antifa idiots are fodder for the next Jared Loughner who’s watching footage of these riots 24/7.

  49. There’s no question that the federal agents arresting protesters in Portland, Oregon, are acting against the wishes of state and local authorities.

    You’re under the impression that the authority of the federal government to act in enforcing federal law is constrained by “the wishes” of Democrat mayors/governors?

    1. Apparently. So our inalienable rights are alienable by state and city governments??? What a one-sided, myopic point of view the article’s author has. If it isn’t stupid, it comes darn close.

  50. I’m going to use the same description I have for those who say “You can’t oppose abortion because you haven’t adopted all of the unwanted children”. False hypocrisy through willful misinterpretation.

    Federalism makes us want to minimize the Federal involvement.

    I do not like federal officers going in, but we have had months of civil unrest with no end in sight, including active destruction of government buildings. The city and state had their chance to retain control. They lost control and didn’t even try to regain it. Their people are under siege, and government buildings have been under open attack.

    If an open insurrection does not warrant federal involvement, what does?

  51. When did you hire a DNC dweeb to write for you?

    1. Decades ago, sadly.

  52. I didn’t know the Federal government needs to get permission from Trump-hating Marxist mayors to protect federal property. The Insurrection Act of 1807 empowers the President to use federal forces – even against ‘peaceful’ insurrections, where such minor peaceful actions such as trying to burn down a federal courthouse with federal agents quartered within are taking place.

    Pretty please, Mayor Wheeler, may we save our courthouse?

  53. Seriously? Are you daft?

    Of course the Federal government should stay out of states and cities business WHEN THEY ARE HONESTLY ATTEMPTING TO DO THEIR JOB.

    But when they are not, then the Federal government still has a fundamental right and power to intervene.

    The most fundamental purpose of government is the safety of its citizens. Especially when we do not have the appropriate means to protect ourselves.

    I am 100% Libertarian. I am against the federal government intervening anywhere and in any way not authorized by our Constitution, which it does all day long every day unfortunately.
    However, the federal government stepping in to protect us when cities and states are willfully abdicating their responsibilities is 100% wholly correct and in accordance with the Constitution and protecting our individual and inalienable rights.

    To suggest otherwise is just plain myopic idiocy.

  54. Would the writers at Reason state and support ex governor Faubus and his state right to black people of color coming to lilly white high schools?

    Several people commented on the property destruction and vandalism. I believe that after life, the most fundamental right is that of owning property – our ability to make a living. These “mostly” peaceful protesters are taking this right away.

    If states, counties, or,cities will not protect our God given rights, who can citizens turn to other than vigilantes?

  55. Inalienable rights violated by rioters without redress by city and state governments (in general and not in every case):

    Amendment 1: Freedom of speech, of the press, and freedom to peaceably assemble, ability to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    Amendment 14: No State shall…..deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Then there are the numerous laws of both federal and state governments which make it a crime to harm others or their property

    Declaration of Independence:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

    ARTICLE. VI.
    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.

    (Therefore, if the states fail to enforce just laws that protect the rights of their citizens, then there is only one other option, which is the federal government)

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and ALL EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS, BOTH OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION;

    (Therefore, if the states fail to enforce just laws that protect the rights of their citizens, then the federal government MUST INTERVENE)

    Article II,
    Section. 3 HE (PRESIDENT) SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED,

    (Therefore, if the laws are not faithfully executed, the president SHALL INTERVENE)

  56. The Feds have a duty to guarantee us all a republican form of government. Part of that guarantee is protection from invasion and insurrection. If your city Commies and anarchists choose to “PeacefulProtest” by destroying your downtown, and your local gov won’t protect the truly peaceful people and their property, it’s okay for Club Fed to step in. It’s not ideal, but we’re pushing close to two months of violent mayhem. Trump has frankly been overly restrained.

  57. After seeing the reception the Democrat mayor of Portland recieved it is apparent these rioters in the streets are protesting the Democrats they elected and their policies. If the rioters are Democrats does that mean after they finish rioting they will once again vote for the same Democrats and the same policies they are rioting against? Isn’t there something a bit suspicious about all of this? If they are against the Democrats they elected and against President Trump who are they for? Maybe they are just a bunch of young people that have been confined from school and going out to party that were allowed to get away with having an extremely destructive block party for too long and think they are in charge. To them this is kind of like a video game they get to participate in.

  58. Good point! Thanks.

  59. If Law and Order has truly broken down in Portland and maybe Seattle and the mayors and the Governors can’t enforce the laws and keep order, then Trump has a couple of options . First , Trump could cut off funds to these cities and States . Second Trump could argue that these states are in such disarray , they can’t conduct valid elections . Therefore no votes from those States should be counted in the November election

    1. Remember the Haymarket riots? Illinois Gov Altgeld pardoned the communist terrorists. Years later, after the communist people’s party carried 5 states and “lost,” the communist income tax was added to the tariff bill and the economy collapsed. In the orgy of arson and rioting that was 1894, Prez Cleveland sent troopers in to shoot some looters, but Altgeld hollered that this was interference, waved them away. Not much has changed; history still rhymes.

  60. I learned the Naxalite policies of America from this article. This kind of policy is only good if it is not in any constitution. I keep searching for such articles. I often read these types of articles on this site.

  61. Very efficiently written information. It will be beneficial to anybody who utilizes it, including me. Keep up the good work. For sure i will check out more posts. This site seems to get a good amount of visitors.

  62. JD.. I cannot believe you are SO dense about all this.

    Trump is ONLY sending Federal assets to protect Federal assets. Men sent to protect federal buildings and grounds. That IS his job. He is NOT having them meddle in local Portland or Seattle matters….. ONLY as far as direcltly affects Federal properties. mThis is HIS responsibility, and he is faithfully dischargeing it.

    Further, even if he DID send them to take care of the business Durnak andWheeler refust t deal with, the Constitution STILL provides for FedGov agents , including military, to “quell riot and civil disturbance”.

    Get off your whinge…. Trum IS doing what he is charged with doing. Durkan Wheeler, etc, are NOT. THEY all swore a solemn oath to enforce the laws of their respective states, and the United States. NONE of them are doing that. And ALL of them swore they would.

    That is called felony perjury. What say ye to that?

Please to post comments