PortalsOS

The argument from the left is that Trump wants to invoke the Insurrection Act to punish his political enemies, deploying ICE agents in Democratic cities and violating due process.

The Insurrection Act can only be invoked in cases of insurrection or foreign invasion. Current federal actions in Chicago do not meet these criteria, making such invocation legally questionable.

The Trump administration's actions are perceived as an attempt to create a narrative of left-wing violence, despite a lack of evidence for widespread incidents.

If a left-winger suggested running over right-wing protesters, the reaction would be outrage. It's about applying the same standard to both sides.

It's no accident that Trump and his administration insist that protesters are part of a shadowy radical leftist underground group called Antifa. It's no accident that they refer to any kind of dissent these days as terrorism.

The administration's use of terms like 'insurrectionists' and 'terrorists' for protesters is a strategic effort to broaden these categories and justify emergency measures.

The Insurrection Act has no qualifiers or time limits on the president's authority, and there's no definition of 'insurrection,' leaving it up to the president's discretion.

The Insurrection Act, a stronger law than Title 10, could be invoked by Trump to use the military for law enforcement, a move not seen since the Rodney King riots.

The Insurrection Act is based on the president's constitutional authority, allowing the president to decide when an insurrection exists and how to deal with it, without needing approval from Congress or judges.

The idea that the president might be able to define his own facts, declaring something as an insurrection to invoke desired powers, raises questions about the role of the courts in checking such actions.