Or the ones who imposed chaos upon their citizens by not handling the violence in their cities...

@govols State’s rights...

But as to “imposing chaos” should the fed marshals be arresting blm, antifa, Schumer and Pelosi, George Soros, Zuckerburg, and pretty much the heads of every msm outlet?

@parsifal

Well, there does seem to be some organized interstate crime going on among some of those you list.

@govols Oh yeah! Sedition comes to mind as a start

“ What is the tyrannical government - the one who has let the individual states handle the violence in their cities?” seems to be implying that the federal government should take control of what goes on in states before they are asked for help by the executive branch of those independent (but United) states.

If this is what you meant to imply, it is the same lack of understanding (or ignorance) of how our government was set up to run as was frequently displayed by the “victims” of Hurricane Katrina. They also blamed the federal government for not rescuing them before the hurricane landed.

The way our system of government works is far more efficient and effective than what is being proposed by Marxists or those seeking a dictator. Our system respects the rights and “responsibilities” of all people. It allows the individual to take care of themselves without interference until they NEED help. Then the local government steps in when requested (they must be prepared to act quickly when the individuals are overwhelmed). Then when local government needs help, they (the mayor or executive branch) requests it from the State. Now this is where it gets a little more complicated. At the point when the state sees it will be overwhelmed, they have a couple of directions to go. 1) They can request help from other states with whom they have established partnerships. 2) they can request help from the federal government. 3) they can do both. Only then should the Federal government encroach on the rights and responsibilities of the independence and sovereignty of the state.

Now having said this, there are exceptions to everything. An example of this is when a federal law has been broken by the executive of the state. (This requires special circumstances and declarations ahead of time). This is considered very problematic and has only been used a half dozen times in the history of our country.

As a retired military officer (mostly working within NORAD/NORTHCOM in the area of DSCA and protection of North America, VI & PR) and having attended several levels of war college, I was required to know not only how the military works within the US, but how the US government works as a whole.

@Daveclark5 I don’t imply anything. But such as it is...

I was replying the statement re “tyrannical government” when I wrote “state’s rights”. I appreciate your reply but I was simply pointing out that the federal government is limited as to when it may act and to what extent...what you had written, only shorter.

And thank you for your service.