There are colorable political arguments against President Trump’s deployment of military forces in response to the rioting, arson, and potentially lethal attacks on law enforcement agents in California. Those, however, are muted by the left’s longstanding endorsement of political violence and illegal immigration. In any event, the legal complaints against Trump’s response are specious.
As our editorial details, the president has broad authority, under Article II and statutory law, to use force as necessary to suppress unrest that creates violent civil strife and impedes lawful federal functions. Again, the real contention against his calling at least 2,000 California National Guard personnel into service (with nearby Marines on alert, and an open-ended authorization of more armed forces) is political: Having mass-pardoned rioters who stormed the Capitol and injured scores of police officers (all in a tawdry, Justice Department–supported project to promote the false claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 election), this president is morally ill-suited to invoke extraordinary powers to put down political violence that obstructs federal functions. Implicit in that contention, though, is that these extraordinary powers are, in fact, embedded in our law.
Comments