Staff Reports
In recent events, there has been a heated discussion in California about the President’s authority to call in the National Guard, especially in light of protests and unrest in various cities. Congressman Kevin Kiley, a Republican from California, has been vocal about this issue, especially since he sits on the House Judiciary Committee. This committee deals with many legal matters, including those that affect the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—a court often considered to lean more liberal than conservative. So, when this court gave the President a green light to deploy the National Guard, it raised a few eyebrows.
Many are surprised by the court’s unanimous ruling, which clarified that the President is within his rights to send the National Guard into situations where the execution of federal laws is under threat. The ruling came after incidents where officers faced serious dangers, including assaults with objects like Molotov cocktails and even being trapped by hostile crowds. It seems the court recognized that the increasing violence could interfere with the President’s duty to maintain order and enforce laws—a job that is at the heart of the Commander-in-Chief’s responsibilities.
Senator Alex Padilla, also from California, expressed a contrasting viewpoint, suggesting that there may not be a full need for the National Guard and emphasizing a more nuanced approach to crime. His statement suggests that while tackling drug dealers and violent criminals is essential, not everyone crossing the southern border should fall under this harsh spotlight. Congressman Kiley had a few words for the Senator, pointing out the irony in his stance. Many of California’s sanctuary policies, supported by both Padilla and Governor Gavin Newsom, reportedly make it harder for federal law enforcement to target dangerous criminals. Instead, they argue that these laws force federal agents to conduct more disruptive operations in communities, rather than dealing with criminals in the safety of jails.
It appears that instead of focusing on the real issues—like the rioters causing chaos—officials seem more concerned about the presence of the National Guard. Kiley called that perspective “deeply offensive,” especially given the dedicated service of these guardsmen who have worked diligently to restore order where local leadership seems to have dropped the ball.
Moreover, the ongoing violence against those enforcing the law, including federal officers, is alarming. Former Homeland Security head Tom Homan highlighted the increased danger these officers face today, stating that assaults against them have risen drastically. Despite the risks, some state lawmakers seem focused on stifling federal operations in ways that lack sound legal footing, particularly as some lawmakers propose restricting actions of federal officers.
Ultimately, Congressman Kiley expressed his disappointment with the priorities of California lawmakers. He underscored that while it is important to safeguard all citizens, it should not come at the expense of federal officers who are simply trying to protect themselves and their families. The increasing violence against these officers is a serious concern that should not be brushed aside. As things unfold, this debate is sure to continue, revealing much about the balance of power between state and federal authorities in managing crime and maintaining the peace.
