GREGG JARRETT: It’s a federal vs state power clash as Trump utilizes National Guard in LA

Here we go again.  

It should surprise no one that a liberal judge seated in San Francisco sided with California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom over control of the National Guard amid the anti-ICE protests that led to riots, looting and attacks on federal agents in Los Angeles.    

The court hearing on Thursday afternoon was a mere formality.  A charade.  

9TH CIRCUIT GRANTS TEMPORARY STAY OF ORDER FOR TRUMP ADMIN TO HAND BACK CONTROL OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD

Hours later, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee and younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, issued his preordained order blocking President Donald Trump’s deployment of 4,000 Guard troops who had managed to suppress much of the violence.  

Immediately, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary stay of Breyer’s ruling.  So, for now, a legal stasis exists as the tinder box of protests simmers.  Further hearings will determine who is abusing power —the president or the judge. 

Based on the law and historical precedence, Trump has the better argument. He acted swiftly to save lives and property as Newsom dithered.       

TRUMP TELLS JUDGE HE DOES NOT NEED NEWSOM’S PERMISSION TO CRACK DOWN ON RIOTERS, DEPLOY NATIONAL GUARD

Let’s step back.  Last weekend, the Chief of the L.A. Police Department publicly lamented that the rioting raged “out of control” and his forces were “overwhelmed.”  He warned that “somebody could easily be killed.”  

Democrats own the lawlessness they now passionately defend.  By their inflammatory rhetoric aimed at both ICE and Trump, they laid the groundwork, set the fuse, and then watched it ignite into the flames of bedlam.  

In the face of escalating violence, Newsom failed or refused to quell the mob assaults on officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who were carrying out their lawful functions.  With lives at risk and federal property under attack, President Trump federalized the National Guard to provide needed protection and help restore law and order. 

When the tumult on the streets of L.A. worsened, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deployed a group of U.S. Marines to further assist.   

Predictably, Newsom took a page out of the Democrats’ anti-Trump “lawfare” playbook and sprinted to a federal judge in San Francisco seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the President.  This posited the inexorable debate of state versus federal powers.  

It is a fundamental duty of the President to enforce all laws, protect citizens and ensure public safety.  This is an inherent power derived from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and an essential function of the chief executive.  But there is more.  

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP TO RETURN CONTROL OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD TO NEWSOM

By special statute passed long ago, Congress granted the president extraordinary powers to subdue any civil disorder directed against the enforcement of federal law.  (10 U.S.C. 12406).  Historically, these powers have been wielded by other presidents, most notably during the civil rights struggles decades ago.  They often did so without the consent of governors who opposed them.    

Newsom has no authority to countermand the president’s order. Moreover, “There is no rioters’ veto to enforcement of federal law,” as the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in its legal brief before Judge Breyer. 

Under Title 10 of the United States Code the president has complete authority to federalize the California National Guard.  Once invoked, neither a governor nor a judge may second-guess whether such a sensitive and discretionary judgment is justified.  All due deference must be given to the Commander in Chief when national security is threatened.  

Only the president is empowered to decide what forces “he considers necessary” to “suppress” a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” or “to execute the laws of the United States,” as DOJ lawyers reminded the judge by quoting directly from the statute.

Newsom contends that Trump may not act without his express permission.  But such a requirement is found nowhere in the law.  Instead, the statute specifically provides that the president’s order “shall be issued through the governors of the States.”  This is a procedural step for the ministerial conveyance of an order.  It is not contingent on the Governor’s assent, or the statute would have said so.    

Newsom erroneously asserts that Trump is barred from acting by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that prohibits the use of federal troops for policing on domestic soil.  This is a frivolous argument.  The National Guard and Marines are not engaged in law enforcement.  Their principal roles are protecting the safety of federal property and personnel.   

JUDGE MULLS TRUMP’S AUTHORITY OVER NATIONAL GUARD, WARNS US IS NOT ‘KING GEORGE’ MONARCHY

The president could invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 which serves as an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, whenever enforcement of federal laws is impeded.  The President could do so without waiting for a reversal from a higher court.  This would effectively end the Governor’s attempt at obstruction.  The latter Act has been invoked numerous times, the latest of which was the 1992 riots in Los Angeles.  

The sanctity of California’s sovereignty is another of Newsom’s canards.  The Supremacy Clause found in Article VI of the Constitution ensures that state laws are subordinate to federal law and cannot supersede it.  This includes sovereignty, which is an elastic concept in the rubber band of politics. But it does not negate the fact that federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

The legal imbroglio could have been avoided if Newsom had acted responsibly at the outset when it was obvious that protests would swiftly morph into violent riots.  Yet, he and fellow Democrats clung to the fiction that the surging demonstrations were “mostly peaceful” —a trite and tired deceit borrowed from the ugly BLM riots in 2020.

The left and their extremist followers operate under the delusion that Americans are blind and cannot see with their own eyes the vivid pictures of the vandalism and looting, vehicles set ablaze, freeways shutdown, and rioters hurling rocks, bottles, bricks and chunks of cement at law enforcement officers.  They fail to comprehend that arson, theft, destruction of property, and assault and battery are serious crimes.  They want you to believe that violent felonies are nothing more than minor skirmishes and mischief to be overlooked.   

Obsessed with their hatred of Trump, the party out of power seeks to vilify the president. Rather than looking inward, they blame him for the riots, as if enforcing the law by arresting and deporting people who are here illegally —including murderers, rapists, and child molesters— is somehow immoral and unsanctioned by voters who placed him in office based in large part on the promise that he would remove them. 

In this way, Democrats own the lawlessness they now passionately defend.  By their inflammatory rhetoric aimed at both ICE and Trump, they laid the groundwork, set the fuse, and then watched it ignite into the flames of bedlam.  

They care more about providing sanctuary for illegals than they do about the safety and welfare of innocent citizens who are preyed upon or the law enforcement community under siege.  It doesn’t matter to them that “somebody could easily be killed,” as the Chief of L.A. Police warned.  

Newsom and his party offer no real remedy to the mayhem roiling the streets of Los Angeles, only condemnation of a president who does.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT