Tally up another win for the president.
Remember that elation you felt watching liberals scream at the moon and hold onto one another for support after Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump became President-elect Donald Trump?
Prepare for it to happen once again this November.
On Tuesday leftist reporters and Democratic politicians received a reality check regarding the legality of the White House sending in federal agents to protect property.
After threatening a federal response to the months of mass looting, rioting, arson and personal injury — especially in Portland, Oregon, Minneapolis and Seattle — last week the president had had enough.
Trump deployed a team of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers into Portland to protect the federal courthouse that had been targeted by the rioters.
The left referred to this as an act of war engaged by federal paramilitary units waged against civilians, and called each arrest a kidnapping.
On Thursday, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Kate Brown referred to the president’s actions as "a blatant abuse of power by the federal government."
The following day her spokesman, Charles Boyle, claimed the arrests were performed without probable cause, describing them as "extraordinarily concerning and a violation of their civil liberties and constitutional rights."
The Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) responded by filing a lawsuit against DHS and the U.S. Marshals Service.
The ACLU released a statement Friday saying, "The lawsuit is one of many the ACLU will be filing against federal authorities in Portland for their unconstitutional attacks on people protesting the police killing of George Floyd."
Vera Eidelman, the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project staff attorney said, "What is happening in Portland is an unconstitutional nightmare."
At Tuesday’s White House press briefing, ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany what constitutional authority the president had to deploy DHS agents into Portland.
She referred Karl to Title 40, Section 1315 of the U.S. Code, which provides, "the Secretary of Homeland Security . . . shall protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the Federal Government . . . and the persons on the property."
Under the section "Powers," it continues, "While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may . . . carry out such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe."
But that didn’t really answer Karl’s question. McEnany offered statutory authority, but not the constitutional authority he’d asked for.
Enter Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University and a frequent TV news contributor on legal, especially constitutional issues.
He observed Tuesday afternoon that "Jon Karl just asked McEnany where in the Constitution does the Trump have the right to send law enforcement into these cities against the will of the local officials. It would start with Article II. The President may send in federal officials into any city."
Turley then referred readers to a blog he’d published that very day, headlined, "Can President Trump Really Send In The Troops To Chicago And Other Cities?"
He continued, "Federal enforcement is not 'by invitation only.' The use of federal agents to protect federal property or enforce federal law does not depend on local permission. There may be legitimate questions on how that authority is used but not the right to use the authority."
Incidentally, Turley is no conservative. A New York Times piece published in December described him as coming from a strong Democratic family, and indicated that he’d voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 1996, and "was also sharply critical of President George W. Bush."
But even absent the statutory and constitutional provisions, the legality of the administration’s actions should have been apparent.
Anyone who owns or leases property has both a right and a duty to protect it.
The objections coming from the left indicate that any common sense they may still have is overshadowed by their hatred for the president. With any luck, voters without skin in the game — the independents necessary to win any election — will see through this and vote accordingly.
At any rate Tuesday was another case of game, set, and match for the president.
Trump often predicted during his 2016 campaign that his supporters would eventually tire of winning, but it hasn’t happened yet.
Although this may be a small victory, it should be a prelude to Nov. 3, when independents will vote for sanity and liberals will be left screaming at the moon once again.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. Read Michael Dorstewitz's Reports — More Here.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.