Federal Intervention in Portland is Risky
A State's National Guard has two bosses: the Federal Government and the State's Government.
There is no question that the
President can activate any State’s National Guard and incorporate it as part of
the Armed Forces, of which it is a component part. The conditions which can lead to that are
basically those in which the regular armed forces would be involved in
defending the nation’s security but require additional personnel. That’s why the National Guard has been
activated to fight in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and other “hot spots.” Federal activation of the Guard does not
include such use however, unless the nation’s security is threatened, for purely domestic
purposes.
Such use falls into the area
in which a State’s Governor has the power to call upon that State’s National
guard to deal with local problems such as floods, hurricanes and local
disturbances beyond the capacity of local law enforcement to handle.
It is conceivable that the disturbances
by mostly peaceful demonstrators, such as what has been going on in Portland,
Oregon, are rightly the kind of thing a State, not the Federal government, should
deal with. A Governor can call out the National Guard of
its State for that purpose but not the Federal Government! The mostly
unidentified Federal law enforcement personnel (not part of the National Guard, but probably recruited from various agencies such as the federal prison system, the Border Patrol and Homeland Security) should have no role in dealing with them, as is
the case in Portland and threatened by the President for Chicago. These are State, not Federal, matters.
But getting back to the role of the National Guard: Consider whether a Governor would be within his
or her rights if they activated their State’s National Guard to face down, with
weapons drawn, the specifically unidentified law enforcement
people the Federal Government is using in places like Portland, and whose presence there amounts to an act
contributing to the disturbances there.
This is a touchy situation because both sides are heavily armed. It could start a Civil War.
JL
* * * *
Men’s hair versus women’s
hair! When I watch news on TV, I am
impressed with the steadiness and reliability of the coiffing of the male
anchors or newsreaders (except of course the bald ones like MSNBC’s Ali
Velshi).
Their hair always looks the
same. Not so with some of the women
doing that job.
One of my favorites is
Stephanie Ruhle who anchors MSNBC at 9 a.m. daily following Morning Joe. Her hair has always been plain and simple,
like a first grade teacher in Kansas City. But when Avi Melber (MSNBC at 6 p.m. daily) was
off on a vacation recently, Ruhle filled in for him. At first I didn’t know who was filling in
because of the radically different way her hair was arranged. But it was her, alright, and amazingly, it
was back the way it usually is at 9 a.m. the next morning. And sticking with MSNBC, Joy Reid just took
over the 7 p.m. slot there but with it came a new hairdo or maybe it's a
wig. I preferred her the old way.
Reid
I suspect these stations have
in-house hairdressers, probably contractually, for their female talent but leave it the men to find
their own local barber shop. But
regardless of how good or bad a head looks, what is more important is what is within
it. Just a thought.
* * * *
Reid |
Attack on P ost Office Finances is Sneaky Way of Hurting Vote-by-Mail - That's Trump's Aim
“Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night nor Trump nor the Republican Party stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds."
"Vote by Mail" is an important asset for right minded Americans in ridding the country of Trump and his enablers, particularly in view of the Pandemic. That is why Republicans oppose it. Weakening the Post Office weakens advocates of "Vote by Mail."
JL
No comments:
Post a Comment