Pres. Trump Did Not Invoke the "Insurrection Act" in Los Angeles -- But He Can Now.

The text of the statute is not as controversial as the name suggests, and Democrat state leaders have brought it on themselves with their acceptance of chaos and rioting as political expression.

On Saturday, after watching the violence in Los Angeles escalate from being street protests of ICE enforcement activities to full-out assaults on federal law enforcement officers as they performed their lawful duties, President Trump exercised authority given to him by Congress as set forth in 10 U.S.C. Section 12406 — “National Guard in Federal service: call”

The text of that statute is as follows:

The first thing to note here is that the three numbered passages are written in the disjunctive — “or” joins them together. This means that only one of the three circumstances need be present for the President to be authorized to exercise the authority given to him by Congress in the full paragraph that follows (3).

The only “judgment” a President must make is that the “regular forces” available to him are unable to “execute the laws of the United States.” Otherwise the authority extended to him is unconditional. For most of the day yesterday, the efforts of ICE and other federal law enforcement agents were met with violent resistance in the streets of Los Angeles. President Trump opted to exercise the authority given to him by Congress. His statement read as follows:

Some controversy had now developed over the language stating that the any “Orders” issued by a President for the purposes of the statute “shall be issued through the governors of the States….” Late on Sunday California Gov. Gavin Newsom denied that any Orders were sent to him as required by the statute. He claimed instead that the Orders calling 2000 California National Guard troops into Federal service were sent to the Commandant of the National Guard. Newsom called for the Orders to be cancelled and the National Guard troops to be withdrawn.

Newsom didn’t make this public comment until nearly 24 hours after the White House issued the Statement that President Trump was invoking Sec. 12406.

But, it is quite possible that the invocation of Sec. 12406 was meant as a de facto invitation for Newsom to cooperate by letting the mobilization go forward. But it seemed to clearly make the point that Pres. Trump was not asking for Newsom’s permission or approval — it was going to happen and Newsom could either get on board or at least remain silent. In the White House they might have seen this as a way to send a message to other states/cities who pride themselves on being “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens.

For 24 hours Newsom seemed to opt for silence, but as the protests became more widespread as the day went on, Newsom issued his letter. But by taking this step Newsom has opened the door for Pres. Trump to act even more aggressively. He now has the factual justification called for under the provisions of the Insurrection Act to take similar steps in direct contravention to the wishes of Newsom and Bass.

The language of the Insurrection Act is not nearly as controversial as the spin tha has been put on it by the media and interest groups. Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 253 is most directly applicable AFTER the issuance by Newsom of his letter calling for the National Guard to be withdrawn. Here is how the statute reads:

Contrary to the X-Lawyers claiming that Pres. Trump is violating the “Posse Comitatus Act” — which prohibits use of the military for purposes of domestic law enforcement — the Insurrection Act is a statutory exception to the restrictions of posse comitatus. The statute authorizes the use of militia or armed forces — with “militia” defined elsewhere at the National Guard — “to suppress, in a State any … domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy….”

Note that the provisions of Sec. 253 do not refer to any involvement of the state or local authorities. Subsection (1) explicitly references a condition where the authorities of the State “are unable, fail, or refuse to protect” the rights of others. Subsection (2) deals with actions that oppose or obstruct the execution of hte laws of the United States.

The initial invocation of his authority Sec. 12406 was an “invitation” to the “authorities” of California to work with him in securing the rights of all residents in the greater Los Angeles area to not suffer the consequences of the law-breaking taking place in the streets. Newsom seemed to acquiesce to that by not voicing any immediate objection to the Orders issued by Pres. Trump to Secretary of Defense Hegseth. He made critical comments to the press, but did not voice an objection until his letter released late on Sunday, nearly 24 hours later.

Newsom’s rejection of Trump’s invocation of Sec. 12405 — along with Mayor Karen Bass’ idiotic commentary the entire weekend — now satisfies one of the pre-conditions for invocation of the Insurrection Act, i.e, that authorities in California are “unable, fail, or refuse” to protect rights “named in the constitution” that belong to others in Los Angeles. The President is not required to stand by and watch parts of Los Angeles be destroyed because the Democrat party, its members, and its constituencies are accepting of violent street protests as an expression of disapproval of the Trump Administration policy to enforce federal immigration laws.

And that is what this all comes down to — the Democrat Party and politicians have normalized violent street protests as an expression of political opposition. But this isn’t the street protests in the tradition of the Civil Rights movement — non-violent civil disobedience to advance the interests of United States citizens about whom there was no legitimate controversy.

These protests being encouraged and advocated by Democrats and other political opponents are overtly violent by intention, and they advocate the interests of foreigners and foreign interests that have no lawful place in the United States, were rejected in the most recent nationwide election, and are widely rejected by the vast majority of the population of the country as a whole.

The Insurrection Act is most commonly invoked in times of “lawlessness” at the state or local level that is the result of some form of natural disaster that makes state and local law enforcement either non-existence or ineffectual. Federal assistance steps in to fill that vacuum in order to protect the constitutional rights of the residents of the state.

Complaints are now being heard from those whose sympathies are with the rioters and illegal aliens that the Insurrection Act has never before been used to respond to political protests in the streets of major U.S. cities.

That may be true — but never before have major U.S. cities been the bastions of millions of illegal aliens as they are now as the result of the policy of successive Democrat party administrations that opened the borders to all comers as has been the case for 12 of the past 16 years.

The remedy to the situation created by Democrat politicians is going to be ugly and messy. Given that this is an 80-20 issue in the nation as whole, the Democrats should have seen this coming. They have only themselves to blame.