The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

State & Localities Insurrection Chirps

11/14/24 Rage and Resistance

As Jonathan Turley has written in his article, ‘Second Resistance to Trump’ has already begun, but it won’t work so well this time:

“The single most common principle of recovery programs is that the first step is to admit that you have a problem.

That first step continues to elude the politicians and pundits who unsuccessfully pushed lawfare and panic politics for years.”

And:

“After a crushing electoral defeat and the loss of the White House and likely both houses of Congress, one would think that Democrats would be ready for that first step to recovery. However, those hoping for a new leaf on the left do not understand the true addictive hold of rage.”

We first saw this rage and resistance in the election of President Trump in 2016, and we now see it in his election of 2024. The most disturbing threat to our democracy is the rage and resistance of both elected and appointed officials and the bureaucracy. Our democratic republic was instituted to have the government reflect the will of the people, with safeguards to protect the rights of individuals and groups. Whenever the government does not reflect the will of the people while protecting their rights, we no longer have a democratic republic but some form of a minoritarian government.

Rage allows those who are enraged to engage in words and deeds that are unacceptable in a civilized society. While these words and deeds may be legal when done by non-governmental people, when they are done by governmental people in the performance of their duties and responsibilities, they are subversive to our democratic republic and a true insurrection.

We have seen how this rage by governmental persons was subversive during the first administration of President Trump. The Russian Collusion Delusion, the two impeachments, endless Congressional investigations aimed at President Trump and those surrounding him, along with the lower-level administrators and bureaucrats hindering, slow walking, or obstructing President Trump’s initiatives are all symptoms of this rage. Such rage limited his agenda and policy goals, which the American people elected him to implement.

During the Biden Administration, we have seen this rage manifest itself in governmental actions against Republicans, Conservatives, and opponents of the Biden Administration in their rules, regulations, and lawfare leveled against them. Thus, the safeguards to protect the rights of individuals were violated by the Biden Administration and the bureaucrats.

As we enter into the next Trump Administration, we are again seeing this rage and resistance manifest itself. The comments by various elected officials that oppose President Trump, saying that they will not cooperate and indeed resist President-elect Trump’s lawful policies, is an insurrection against the federal government. It should also be remembered that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that no State or local government can contravene or ignore the Constitution or Federal law. Thus, any attempt by any State or local government to resist lawful actions by President Trump is an insurrectionist action. They have every right to challenge the lawfulness of a policy, but they have no right to resist when the policy is lawful.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is the mental illness that fuels this rage. As with all mental illnesses, there is no reasoning with the mentally ill. And, as with all mentally ill persons, you should not pay heed to their delusions but instead chart a course that is sanity-driven.

06/11/25 Equal Protection of the Laws

Section 1. of the XIV Amendment to the Constitution states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It was originally passed after the Civil War to protect the civil liberties of the newly freed slaves and all black people from discrimination by State and Local authorities. Although it had a checked history of enforcement until it was utilized for Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s, it is now a backbone of our Liberties and Freedoms to ensure against discrimination of any and all civil liberties.

We now have a situation in Los Angeles, California, in which the equal protection of the law is being violated by State and local authorities. If State and local authorities do not enforce the law against some people because of their own political predilections, then they are not equally enforcing the laws. This puts them in violation of the 14th Amendment, and it should trigger Federal actions to equally enforce the laws.

I, therefore, believe that the President of the United States can declare an insurrection in Los Angeles by their violation of the 14th Amendment. No lawsuit to stop this action would be legitimate, as the President has the Constitutional duty to suppress insurrections under the Insurrection Act of 1807. Only Congress can intervene in this action by passing a resolution that no insurrection is occurring in Los Angeles, and no Presidential action is needed. The Supreme Court could hear challenges to the President's declaration of an insurrection and/or to the constitutionality of the Insurrection Act of 1807. However, no lower court can become involved, as no lower court has the authority to determine what is or is not an insurrection and the powers of a President to suppress an insurrection.

As a consequence of this declared insurrection, the President can relieve the Governor and Mayor from the responsibility of enforcing the law and then place all law enforcement under the jurisdiction of Federal authorities. I would suggest that the "border czar", Tom Homan, whose official title is White House Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, be placed in charge of law enforcement under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, until this insurrection is suppressed.

**********************************************

Please note – This Chirp was written before President Trump indicated yesterday afternoon that he may invoke the Insurrection Act if riots in Los Angeles or elsewhere continue.

07/12/25 The 2025 Revolution

In 1775, the American Colonists had had enough of English Imperialism in America and started a revolution which brought forth the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which secured American independence. In 2025, we are involved in another (peaceful) revolution to free us from the Administrative State that Progressivism has imposed upon America, as I have Chirped on “07/nn/25 Baked Into the Cake”.

This time, we are in a revolt against the Imperial Progressives, Imperial Bureaucracy, and Imperial Judges. This revolt, led by President Trump and his cadre of Cabinet Secretaries and their Assistant Secretaries, his Advisors and Aids, and his Special Envoys, is for reestablishing that the American people are the leaders of our government, and elected and appointed officials are the servants to the people, while bureaucrats are only to implement the policies and agendas of the elected leaders. Who would have thought that government of the people, by the people, and for the people should be the standard for American government? Alas, this peaceful revolution is being actively opposed by the Imperial Progressives, Imperial Bureaucracy, and Imperial Judges.

Imperial Progressives are insisting that they know what is best for America and Americans, and that their policies and agendas are the only acceptable outcomes for America and Americans, despite elections in which they were turned out of power. These Imperial Progressives are inflaming the passions of their supporters in hopes of ending the 2025 revolution. They are doing this through their derogatory and disparaging characterizations of President Trump and his cadre, not to mention such characterizations of President Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters. Most despicable, and inaccurate, is their portrayal of President Trump, his cadre, and his supporters as Nazis, Fascists, and Hitler like. This gives the Progressives a moral superiority attitude that they are righteously fighting evil, which allows the Progressive mobs to act in a non-peaceful manner. Many Progressives are engaged in Lawfare, physical assaults, property damages and destruction, and now shootings, which they are waging against this 2025 Revolution, often with the encouragement of Democrat Party Leaders.

Such conduct is antithetical to our American Ideals and Ideas and destructive to A Civil Society. It is also a borderline insurrection. If President Trump and his cadre are acting constitutionally and within the law, they are permitted to dismantle the Administrative State. Any action in opposition to the 2025 Revolution needs to be a result of free and fair elections and not civil unrest, or upon lawsuits based on Constitutional or legitimate legal grounds. And such lawsuits should only be adjudicated by dispassionate judges and not Imperial Judges.

Alas, Progressives know that they are in disfavor with the American electorate, and they have been ultimately losing their lawsuits when Imperial Judges are overruled by the Appellate Courts or the Supreme Court, as I have written in my collected Chirps on "Judicial Restraint". Thus, they have begun to urge for more violence to obtain their goals. This violence, therefore, is an insurrection against the lawful authority of the United States, and it should be dealt with as such.

07/21/25 Mobocracy

With the Democrats having lost both houses of Congress and the Presidency, along with their other Institutional powers, and with most American people becoming inured to their falsifications and fearmongering, they have become increasingly desperate to hang onto whatever power they have and to increase their power by whatever means necessary. Their latest attempts at manipulating the public by:

• Bloviating - To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner, usually without much basis.
• Equivocations - A statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth.
• Evasiveness - Intentionally vague or ambiguous.
• Fabrications - A deliberately false or improbable account.
• Fallaciousness - Containing or based on a fallacy, often involving deceptiveness. Based on an incorrect or misleading notion or information.
• Falsehoods - A false statement.
• Fearmongering, scaremongering - the spreading of frightening and exaggerated rumors of an impending danger to purposely arouse fear in order to manipulate the public.
• Grandstanding - Dramatic or showy behavior intended to impress an audience or observers.
• Prevarications - A statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.
• Shenanigans - The use of tricks to deceive someone.
• Untruths - A false statement.

These deceptions have not worked, and they are now resorting to mobocracy - a political system in which a mob is the source of control.

Their heated rhetoric, pejoratives, and rage aimed at their opponents is for the stirring up of the passions of their supporters, in which such passions will ensue in mob actions, often leading to individual or mob violence. Their utter lack of condemning this individual or mob violence demonstrates that they want this violence. Their excuses for this individual or mob violence show that this violence is their intended purpose. Thus, the Democrats are trying to invoke violence to interfere with the lawful execution of the law by individual or mob actions. This, by any other name, is an insurrection, and the modern Democrat Party is a party of insurrection.

This insurrection is much more serious than the January 6, 2021, so-called ‘Insurrection’, of which the Democrats claimed was an attempt to overthrow the government, but was in reality a very unruly mob venting their frustrations, as I have examined in my collected Chirps on "Insurrection". This current Democrat insurrection is much more serious, as Victor Davis Hanson explains in his YouTube video "Something SERIOUS Is About To Hit America... | Victor Davis Hanson".

This is not only an insurrection by the Democrat supporters, but an insurrection by the Democrat Party Leaders. These Democrat Party Leaders swore an oath of office to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States”, and they are now effectively trying to thwart the lawful execution of the laws, lawfully passed under the Constitution. If the Democrat Party Leaders do not like the law, they should lawfully change or eliminate the law, or institute lawsuits (but not Lawfare) if they believe that the law is being applied inappropriately. They should not try to instigate mobs and mob violence to stop the enforcement of the law. In doing so, the Democrat Party Leaders have become insurrectionists, and they should be removed from office and prosecuted for their insurrectionist words and deeds. Being elected does not mean they can instigate or violate the law for whatever reason you believe is proper, as no one is above the law.

10/07/25 A State of Insurrection

A state of insurrection refers to a situation where a group of people rises up against the authority of a government, often involving rebellion or civil disorder. In the U.S., the Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy military forces to restore order during such events. In U.S. law, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, it defines insurrection as:

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the U.S. federal law that empowers the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder, of insurrection, and of armed rebellion against the federal government of the United States. The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) that limits the president's deployment of the U.S. military to enforce either civil law or criminal law within the United States.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land" and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions are subordinate to the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

Habeas corpus is a legal procedure invoking the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual, and request the individual's custodian (usually a prison official) to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful. The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as a fundamental safeguard of individual liberty. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and Reconstruction in some places or types of cases. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended habeas corpus. Following the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush attempted to place Guantanamo Bay detainees outside of the jurisdiction of habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court of the United States overturned this action in Boumediene v. Bush. The events of January 6, 2021, “Insurrection” raised significant concerns about the application of habeas corpus, particularly regarding the treatment of those detained in connection with the insurrection.

The Suspension Clause in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, of the Constitution states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This clause is significant as it protects individuals from unlawful detention by ensuring they can challenge their imprisonment in court. In this, it protects liberty by protecting the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and it provides that the federal government may not suspend this privilege except in extraordinary circumstances: when a rebellion or invasion occurs and the public safety requires it.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln, and although versions of the sentiment have been advanced at various times in American history, the precise phrase "suicide pact" was first used in this context by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago, a 1949 free speech case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The phrase also appears in the same context in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Justice Arthur Goldberg.

In America today, we have seen many State and local officials, as well as some judges, and violent mob participants, who, in their support of illegal immigration, have impeded Federal Law Enforcement by those charged with enforcing immigration law. All people in America are free to speak out for or against immigration laws, but no person is allowed to physically impede the enforcement of these laws. As such, those who impede the enforcement of these laws are in a state of rebellion (i.e., Insurrection) against the lawful authority of the Federal government. And, as such, I believe that President Trump can declare a state of rebellion in those States and local jurisdictions that are defying Federal law enforcement. In this declaration, he should also suspend habeas corpus until such time as the rebellion is suppressed. Consequently, all persons, including State and local officials, as well as some judges, and violent mob participants who impede law enforcement must be arrested and detained until this rebellion has ended.

The Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, may review this declaration to determine its Constitutionality. No other court has the authority, nor the jurisprudence, to properly determine its Constitutionality. To allow any other court to review this matter could potentially prolong this insurrection based on the political predilections of the judges.

If we do not put an end to this insurrection on First Amendment or other Constitutional grounds, then we have indeed made the Constitution a suicide pact, as an active insurrection that is allowed to continue can only lead to the disintegration of the Constitution.

10/27/25 A Current State of Insurrection

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the U.S. federal law that empowers the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder, of insurrection, and of armed rebellion against the federal government of the U.S. The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) that limits the president's ability to deploy the U.S. military to enforce either civil law or criminal law within the United States.

After invoking and before exercising the powers authorized under the Insurrection Act, Title 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the publication of a presidential proclamation whereby the U.S. President formally orders the dispersion of the people committing civil unrest or armed rebellion. The Defense Department guidelines define "homeland defense" as a constitutional exception to the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act; therefore, the political, military, and police measures necessary to protect national security from external threats are exceptions to the restrictions of the act.

There have been thirty instances of the invocation of the Insurrection Act by presidents in American history, most prominently during and after the Civil War, and most recently in riot suppressions in the latter half of the 20th century.

As I have Chirped on “10/07/25 A State of Insurrection”, a state of insurrection refers to a situation where a group of people rises up against the authority of a government, often involving rebellion or civil disorder. In the U.S., the Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy military forces to restore order during such events. In U.S. law, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, it defines insurrection as:

“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

During the invocations of the Insurrection Act, all people involved in the insurrection are subject to Federal detention. This includes elected and appointed officials who are in insurrection or support of insurrection. Any Governor, Mayor, Police Commissioner, Peace Officer, State National Guard Officers, or judge who impedes the execution of the implementation of the presidential proclamation is subject to detainment, and, indeed, should be detained until the insurrection is suppressed. This was how it was done in the past, most especially during the Civil War, and this is how it should be, as the peace and safety of the people are a primary responsibility of these elected and appointed officials. After the insurrection is suppressed, those detained have the legal right to challenge their detention, and the Federal government has the right and duty to prosecute those detained for insurrection.

Consequently, given the current riots and Antifa violence that are occurring in many American cities against the lawful actions of the Federal government, a state of insurrection exists in these localities. Thus, President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act in these cities and detain all those involved or supportive of the insurrection until such time as there is no longer an insurrection. To do otherwise is to allow for violence to fester and grow throughout America, and the erosion of Constitutional governance in America.

10/28/25 Nullification in America

Nullification (U.S. Constitution) in United States constitutional history is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws that it deems unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the State's own Constitution). There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

The Nullification Crisis was a sectional political crisis in the United States in 1832 and 1833, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which involved a confrontation between the State of South Carolina and the federal government. It ensued after South Carolina declared the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the State.

The next big nullification crisis was when the Southern States attempted to nullify their adoption of the United States Constitution and form their own country. This attempt led to the American Civil War between the Union ("the North") and the Confederacy ("the South"), which was formed in 1861 by states that had seceded from the Union to preserve African American slavery, which they saw as threatened because of the election of Abraham Lincoln and the growing abolitionist movement in the North.

In the years between the Civil War and the present day, several Government and local officials sought to de facto nullify Federal laws by physically opposing their enforcement or not enforcing the law. Many of these actions were overturned by federal judicial rulings, but some of these actions resulted in Presidents invoking The Insurrection Act of 1807 to enforce the law. There have been thirty instances of the invocation of the Insurrection Act by presidents in American history, most prominently during and after the Civil War, and most recently in riot suppressions in the latter half of the 20th century.

In today’s America, we are seeing a different type of nullification of Federal laws. When President Biden and his Executive Officers did not enforce immigration law, they were nullifying the law. When State and local government leaders and appointed officials oppose and do not assist in the enforcement of immigration law, they are nullifying the law. When sanctuary cities and States are established to protect illegal immigrants from lawful detainment and deportation, they are nullifying the law. When judges fail to uphold immigration law or contort the law to suit their own predilections, they are nullifying the law. We have also seen State and local government leaders and appointed officials, along with some judges, not enforcing laws against violent protesters, which is a de facto nullification of the law. And when anyone opposes the law through other than proper legal processes, they are in a state of insurrection, as I have written in my Chirp on “10/27/25 A Current State of Insurrection”.

Nullification is also Unconstitutional, as the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress and signed by the President are the supreme law of the land. Accordingly, nullification is an abrogation of the Constitution. It should also be remembered that if you do not like a law, you should change the law or challenge the constitutionality of the law in a court of law and not nullify the law. If you do not like the Constitution, then you should pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the Constitution to your liking.

Nullification of law is an assault on the Rule of Law, as it replaces an orderly society with the predilections of government officials, as I have written in my Chirp on, "05/17/22 The Rule of Law versus The Rule by Men and Women" It also makes these Governors and Mayors rulers, as I have examine in my article To Be Rulers or to Be Leaders, and helps establish fiefdoms in America, as I have Chirped on "09/05/25 Fiefdoms". Liberty relies on the Rule of Law, as I have Chirped on, "03/20/24 Liberty Relies on Rule of Law", and the Rule of Law is also linked to the economic well-being of a society, as David Dettman has written in his article on “Upholding Prosperity: The Economic Benefits of the Rule of Law. Nullification also invokes disrespect for the law amongst the public, which leads to the breakdown of obedience to the law if someone disagrees with a law, which is the forerunner of anarchy. And Nullification always comes with unintended negative consequences, as I have written in my article on The Law of Unintended Consequences.

Consequently, nullification is repugnant, and it must end if American society is to survive and thrive. To do otherwise is to allow for the destruction of our American Ideals and Ideas.

01/08/26 The Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under the authority of the United States, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land" and thus take priority over any conflicting state or local laws. It provides that state and local courts are bound by, and state constitutions and local ordinances are subordinate to, the supreme law of the Constitution. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights, and in particular the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution.

In America today, many state and local officials, along with some judges and participants in violent mobs, have supported illegal immigration by hindering or obstructing federal law enforcement responsible for enforcing immigration laws. Everyone in America is free to speak out for or against immigration laws, but no one is allowed to hinder or physically obstruct law enforcement efforts. Therefore, those who hinder or obstruct law enforcement are in a state of rebellion (i.e., insurrection) against the lawful authority of the federal government, as I have Chirp on "10/07/25 A State of Insurrection". Those state and local officials who call for federal law enforcement officers to leave their cities and states and not enforce federal laws are not respecting the Supremacy Clause and, in fact, are calling for its negation. They are also acting as if their jurisdictions were their fiefdoms, as I have Chirped on "09/05/25 Fiefdoms".  

We have also seen state and local politicians threatening federal law enforcement officials with future legal action by the executive branch if they are elected Mayor, Governor, or President. Such threats are unconstitutional if carried out, as the Supremacy Clause grants federal law enforcement officials immunity from legal actions when they are lawfully enforcing federal law. These threats also serve as a form of intimidation to discourage current federal law enforcement officers from doing their jobs out of fear of future legal repercussions. While such intimidation might be illegal, prosecuting and obtaining a conviction are very difficult due to jury nullification, as I have Chirped on "06/12/24 Equal Justice for All?".

These negations of the Supremacy Clause and intimidation tactics are an attack on the Rule of Law, as they aim to interfere with or stop the enforcement of properly enacted laws. Anyone who undermines the Rule of Law does not deserve to hold any elected or appointed government position, as they are morally and ethically unfit to lead a people committed to Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All.

01/15/26 An Insurrection in Progress

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the U.S. federal law that empowers the president of the United States to nationally deploy the U.S. military and to federalize the National Guard units of the individual states in specific circumstances, such as the suppression of civil disorder, of insurrection, and of armed rebellion against the federal government of the U.S. The Insurrection Act provides a statutory exception to the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) that limits the president's deploying the U.S. military to enforce either civil law or criminal law within the United States. The Insurrection Act of 1807 has been invoked 30 times (List of invocations of the Insurrection Act) in its history, most notably by Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1861, in response to the Secession of the southern states.

Currently, the situation regarding the detention and deportation of illegal immigrants resembles what occurred before the Civil War, with mobs, cities, and states challenging and interfering with Federal authority. As I mentioned on “01/08/26 The Supremacy Clause”, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) states that the Constitution, federal laws enacted under it, and treaties made under U.S. authority are the "supreme Law of the Land" and thus override any conflicting state or local laws. It also confirms that state and local courts are bound by the Constitution, and state constitutions and local ordinances are subordinate to the supreme law of the Constitution.

As Jonathan Turley has written in his article, “Going Full Spartacus: Democrats Hold Chest-Thumping Press Conferences to Fuel Anti-ICE Rage”:

“From Portland to Philadelphia, Democratic leaders are engaging in performative press conferences to try to outdo each other in declaring the shooting of Renee Good “murder” or declaring a “war” with the federal government over the enforcement of immigration policies.”

Alas, the situation in Minnesota has escalated beyond a “war” of words; it has become active resistance by the mob against federal authorities, with the support of State and local officials. In fact, State and local officials are making slanderous and denigrating statements against Federal officials, inciting the crowd to rage, and refusing to provide support from State and local law enforcement for Federal law enforcement actions. Through these speeches and actions, they are backing an insurrection against the Federal government.

Accordingly, it is time for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 against Minnesota, for the reasons that I have Chirped on "10/07/25 A State of Insurrection". President Trump must declare martial law in Minnesota, nationalize their National Guard to suppress the insurrection, arrest those involved, and suspend the Writ of Habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, of the Constitution states that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Once this insurrection is subdued and martial law is lifted, appropriate legal actions should be taken against those individuals, as well as state and local officials who supported the insurrection, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This should serve as a warning to other State and local officials: active resistance to lawful Federal authority will not be tolerated. Tolerating and/or supporting an insurrection is a violation of the principles of the Constitution and promotes chaos. This chaos will spread across America and threaten our American Ideals and Ideas, and our Freedoms, Liberties, Equalities, and Equal Justice for All. Therefore, it is time to put an end to this insurrection and chaos in Minnesota, for the good of America and all Americans.