Daily news reports are NOT geared to report "nothing terrible happened today" or "today was a pleasant day with polite exchange. "News" by definition is something that is "different" or "happening". So just one gun shooting or motor accident makes the news. A daily onslaught of these "news" paints a picture of negative life.
What probability attaches to today's rousing of the anti-crime rabble might cleverly provide a ruse for the purpose of:
First, unifying and taking command of civil and military forces;
Second, and perhaps contriving Friday's meeting with Putin as disgust and frustration, intensified as potential for existential threat;
Third, inflate such fear into exigent mobilization of preparedness;
Fourth, declare martial laws and institute extraordinary measures to "protect" our democracy;
Fifth, undertake measures that would transform emergency power into the usurpation of control and the cancellation of constitutional limits; and
Sixth, launch the coup that would establish and preserve unlimited dictatorial power by repressing the expression and restoration of fundamental values.
Militarizing LA & DC with federal troop deployments is part of his illegal plan for the military in policing the country.
While Trump falsely claims crime in DC is “out of control”, violent crime in DC from 2024 to date is at its lowest level since the 1960’s. The FBI data for 2024 shows declines in all seven categories of crime and across all ten population groups measured.
A huge waste of time and money deploying National Guard/military forces in U.S. cities. They aren’t trained for that and just creates chaos and mayhem.
So what is Grinch Trump doing sending national guard to Washington DC? The man is never satisfied. Maybe he should get another wife to help him out on his frustration.
I would recommend an interview with Washington, DC residents in a wide range of neighborhoods. It's the people who may best know what is the truth in their city. They have to live it and with it.
Trump (now and previously) invoked essentially necessity, so this seems like a good time to recall what the Constitution says is "the rule of law" governing such issues. Trump's conduct (or threatened conduct) fails every relevant test in our Constitution. Part of the proof includes Trump's lies about the nature of the necessity. Part of the proof will be created by how he purports to remedy the necessity.
The language of the D.C. Home Rule Act states real standards that Congress used to limit the power of the president. He must be acting for legitimate "federal purposes" (authorized by our Constitution), and even then, the president may act only "in an emergency." We can judge for ourselves that no such emergency exists and Trump is not acting for any federal purpose.
The proper analysis of this issue is not new. This was one of the most passionately discussed topics when the Constitution was being discussed for ratification. Trump's lies (now and previously) about purported necessity to take extreme actions call to mind a very important part of the history of the Constitution (including specifically the Bill of Rights) emphasized by Leonard Levy in his book "Origins of the Bill of Rights:" The potential "necessary and proper" justification for federal action "was the most formidable in the array of national powers, therefore the most controversial, and the one most responsible, later, for the demand for a bill of rights to ensure that the [federal government] did not violate the rights of the people or of the states."
As always, the admonitions and warnings by James Madison (writing for the Virginia Assembly) in the Report of 1800 (regarding violations of our Constitution by Congress, the president and the judiciary) are vital. The Report of 1800 responded to the assertions of necessity underlying the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So Madison emphasized that "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is solemnly enjoined by most of the state constitutions, and particularly by our own [Constitution], as a necessary safeguard against the danger of degeneracy to which republics are liable." "The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present."
Obviously, Article VI emphasizes that “the supreme Law of the Land” consists first and foremost of “this Constitution” and then federal “Laws” that have been “made in Pursuance” of our Constitution and “Treaties.” Article VI (and public servants’ oaths of office) further emphasized that all legislators “and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States” are “bound” to “support this Constitution” in all ways possible in all official conduct.
In Article I, the People emphasized that “All” (and ONLY those) “legislative Powers herein granted” (by the People) “shall be vested” in “Congress.” The People vested in our elected (chosen) representatives in Congress the power to “make all” (and ONLY) “Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” absolutely “all” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in Congress or in any part of “the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including, obviously, the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges).
In the Report of 1800, Madison emphasized the meaning and significance of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
"The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental or instrumental powers, necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the express powers; whether they be vested in the government of the United States, more collectively, or in the several departments, or officers thereof. It is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution, those otherwise granted, are included in the grant.
Whenever, therefore a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular [federal] power; the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed; the next enquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it."
In Article II the People “vested in a President” the “executive Power.” Then, the People declared the limits of all such executive power. We vested in the president primarily the power to merely “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But because exigencies and emergencies will expose gaps in legislation created by Congress (and because treaties must be negotiated by the executive branch and the president is the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces), we vested in the president the power to take all other actions (to the extent that necessary and proper) to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability."
Especially whenever (as here) the president purports to act not merely to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” but to exercise discretion in fulfilling his duty to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability," the president's powers necessarily are governed by the limitations, above, governing Congress. All such actions must be “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the “Powers" actually "vested by this Constitution.”
Daily news reports are NOT geared to report "nothing terrible happened today" or "today was a pleasant day with polite exchange. "News" by definition is something that is "different" or "happening". So just one gun shooting or motor accident makes the news. A daily onslaught of these "news" paints a picture of negative life.
What probability attaches to today's rousing of the anti-crime rabble might cleverly provide a ruse for the purpose of:
First, unifying and taking command of civil and military forces;
Second, and perhaps contriving Friday's meeting with Putin as disgust and frustration, intensified as potential for existential threat;
Third, inflate such fear into exigent mobilization of preparedness;
Fourth, declare martial laws and institute extraordinary measures to "protect" our democracy;
Fifth, undertake measures that would transform emergency power into the usurpation of control and the cancellation of constitutional limits; and
Sixth, launch the coup that would establish and preserve unlimited dictatorial power by repressing the expression and restoration of fundamental values.
Beyond the pale? What else is new?
This was probably the last honest reports we get from the FBI. for awhile.
If the Beast's lips are moving he is lying. Not news. Tell me when he is beaten back.
Dear Mr. Nesbit. Are you suggesting that trump might have ...... LIED?????
Donald Trump is out of control.
Militarizing LA & DC with federal troop deployments is part of his illegal plan for the military in policing the country.
While Trump falsely claims crime in DC is “out of control”, violent crime in DC from 2024 to date is at its lowest level since the 1960’s. The FBI data for 2024 shows declines in all seven categories of crime and across all ten population groups measured.
A trial before federal judge Breyer to determine whether the Trump administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that forbids the government from using the military for law enforcement purposes & the 10th Amendment is underway. https://newrepublic.com/post/198978/donald-trump-warns-fascist-dc-takeover-just-beginning
A huge waste of time and money deploying National Guard/military forces in U.S. cities. They aren’t trained for that and just creates chaos and mayhem.
So what is Grinch Trump doing sending national guard to Washington DC? The man is never satisfied. Maybe he should get another wife to help him out on his frustration.
Fire whoever compiled that report!
I would recommend an interview with Washington, DC residents in a wide range of neighborhoods. It's the people who may best know what is the truth in their city. They have to live it and with it.
Trump (now and previously) invoked essentially necessity, so this seems like a good time to recall what the Constitution says is "the rule of law" governing such issues. Trump's conduct (or threatened conduct) fails every relevant test in our Constitution. Part of the proof includes Trump's lies about the nature of the necessity. Part of the proof will be created by how he purports to remedy the necessity.
The language of the D.C. Home Rule Act states real standards that Congress used to limit the power of the president. He must be acting for legitimate "federal purposes" (authorized by our Constitution), and even then, the president may act only "in an emergency." We can judge for ourselves that no such emergency exists and Trump is not acting for any federal purpose.
The proper analysis of this issue is not new. This was one of the most passionately discussed topics when the Constitution was being discussed for ratification. Trump's lies (now and previously) about purported necessity to take extreme actions call to mind a very important part of the history of the Constitution (including specifically the Bill of Rights) emphasized by Leonard Levy in his book "Origins of the Bill of Rights:" The potential "necessary and proper" justification for federal action "was the most formidable in the array of national powers, therefore the most controversial, and the one most responsible, later, for the demand for a bill of rights to ensure that the [federal government] did not violate the rights of the people or of the states."
As always, the admonitions and warnings by James Madison (writing for the Virginia Assembly) in the Report of 1800 (regarding violations of our Constitution by Congress, the president and the judiciary) are vital. The Report of 1800 responded to the assertions of necessity underlying the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So Madison emphasized that "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is solemnly enjoined by most of the state constitutions, and particularly by our own [Constitution], as a necessary safeguard against the danger of degeneracy to which republics are liable." "The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present."
Obviously, Article VI emphasizes that “the supreme Law of the Land” consists first and foremost of “this Constitution” and then federal “Laws” that have been “made in Pursuance” of our Constitution and “Treaties.” Article VI (and public servants’ oaths of office) further emphasized that all legislators “and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States” are “bound” to “support this Constitution” in all ways possible in all official conduct.
In Article I, the People emphasized that “All” (and ONLY those) “legislative Powers herein granted” (by the People) “shall be vested” in “Congress.” The People vested in our elected (chosen) representatives in Congress the power to “make all” (and ONLY) “Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” absolutely “all” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in Congress or in any part of “the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including, obviously, the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges).
In the Report of 1800, Madison emphasized the meaning and significance of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
"The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental or instrumental powers, necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the express powers; whether they be vested in the government of the United States, more collectively, or in the several departments, or officers thereof. It is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution, those otherwise granted, are included in the grant.
Whenever, therefore a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular [federal] power; the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed; the next enquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it."
In Article II the People “vested in a President” the “executive Power.” Then, the People declared the limits of all such executive power. We vested in the president primarily the power to merely “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But because exigencies and emergencies will expose gaps in legislation created by Congress (and because treaties must be negotiated by the executive branch and the president is the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces), we vested in the president the power to take all other actions (to the extent that necessary and proper) to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability."
Especially whenever (as here) the president purports to act not merely to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” but to exercise discretion in fulfilling his duty to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability," the president's powers necessarily are governed by the limitations, above, governing Congress. All such actions must be “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the “Powers" actually "vested by this Constitution.”