(07-24-2020 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 06:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Cruz proposes this bill because the feds either have a legal obligation to step in or they don't... and if they don't... which is what Portland wants... they want citizens negatively impacted by that decision to have recourse against PORTLAND, but not the Feds.

Both of those actions make logical sense.

Nitpick : I wouldnt say an 'obligation'...... An obligation is something one has to do without question.

And I cannot tell you if you mean a legal obligation to 'surge', or a legal obligation as to damages.

The answer is 'no' to either sense.

The issue is whether or not to enforce one or more particular Federal laws (in this case specific assaultive laws on federal property and personnel) --- and a government can absolutely choose to engage in prosecutorial discretion at any of the investigate, arrest, or charging stages.

The corollary question that has to be asked is such failure good policy? I would say not. In this case the issue is mass civil unrest -- government, at all levels, should provide protection to its residents in an unbiased and non-discriminative manner to such types of violence. In our system, there is a legal basis for the federal government to intervene based on the section of the Constitution dealing with 'insurrection' noted above; but that basis is and should be a backstop. As #s noted with the Wuhan virus, the primary response to local issues and violence are the local and state governments.

In the case of Portland, the local sovereigns are *not* providing equal and non-discriminatory protection to residents. The rub is that the one literally receiving zero protection is the Federal presence -- ostensibly because of Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

The Cruz bill correctly notes that every level of government has a very legal obligation to protect its residents --- it is very obvious that for 4 full days Minneapolis and Minnesota failed in that obligation. In Portland, the people who are residents of the areas directly around the courthouse are being 'failed', as has been the Police union whose building was torched. In Seattle, you had a four week lapse of that in a 16 square block area (the autonomy formerly known as CHAZ).

The Cruz bill places the governments who fail to meet the Constitutional obligation of protection firmly in the crosshairs financially for their refusal to execute and provide that Constitutional duty. And the 3x damages 'drafts' the legion of plaintiff attorneys and absolutely incentivizes such private actions.

And no, it's not improper, nor is it ‘fascism’, to protect federal property from riots and revolutionaries.

And in a lighter hearted observation on lad's emotional invocation of 'sovereignty' (and the left's invocation over the last couple of days of 'states' rights' (again, thank you lad, you seem to be a great primary conduit of talking points into this site with a T-20 hours of the mainstream). It seems like just yesterday the left was blasting Confederate “traitors” (actually less than three weeks for lad using that exact language, mind you), but now they (the generic left) and he (lad in particular) are talking “states’ rights” with the enthusiasm of any generic Dixie US Senator from the 1920's.

Or libertarian from January 2009 to January 2017.