[throwaway_USD]

The States should prevail, because under the Constitution the Federal Government does not have police powers and under the 10th Amendment police powers are reserved for the states.

Now the limit on the Federal government police powers has eroded slowly (like all limitations on the federal governments power under the constitution), so you could point to the FBI, secret service, ICE/CBP...but if the Federal Government prevails it would be a giant leap in erosion of State rights and limitations on Federal powers. Basically it would be negating the 10th Amendment and authorizing the Federal Government to establish their own police and unilaterally deploy them nationwide.

In short the States should prevail based on police power and 10th amendment arguments, but I wouldn't foreclose this being the spark the Federal Government is looking for to gain the police powers they have always wanted. If the Federal Government prevails over the States here, you can anticipate a "commerce clause" argument where the Federal Government will use mental gymnastics to claim State failures to police their States effect interstate commerce, so the Federal Government must have the right to step in with their own police powers and regulate.

[beervirus]

When was the last time a 10th amendment argument won the day? Like 200 years ago?

[GaryNumanVevo]

Last time I checked, the fed doesn't have policing power, only states do. This is a huge overstep of states rights.

[beervirus]

That’s the plenary “police power” you’re thinking of, and it has a lot more to do with the constitutionality of legislation than with actual police work. It doesn’t mean that federal officers can never engage in police-like activities.

See, e.g., the FBI.

[throwaway_USD]

We have seen federal agents acting as police and detaining and arresting individuals on the streets over objections from the Governor and Mayor.

If you are going to support these acts:

1. Cite any legal precedent where Federal government has policed and made arrests over state/local government objections?

2. Identify the Federal Criminal Statute any of the suspects violated authorizing these "arrests"? (presumably even if you believe the Federal government has the power to police over State/local objections, you hopefully agree they don't have the power to make arrests without probably cause a crime was committed, so what is are the federal criminal statutes?)

3. Now even supposing the Court did side with the Federal Government, finding that they have police powers they may unilaterally deploy over objections from local governments and that the arrests here were lawful, you would still tons of other Constitutional issues. For example: in all the arrests I have seen, I have not seen any miranda warnings, post arrest I have yet to find any confirmation the arrestees were afforded their constitutional rights to an attorney...seeing as the Federal agents to date have not had these traditional police powers I think it is fair to assume they haven't received this basic training, and for that reason alone even if the Fed had these powers they are still likely violating numerous constitutional rights in each arrest.

[beervirus]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

2. Attempting to burn down the federal courthouse would probably violate federal law, one would think.

3. You’re just speculating. There’s no reason to think the arrestees aren’t being mirandized and given access to counsel.

[throwaway_USD]

>1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse. So if this is your precedent and there is no Presidential proclamation, then you would agree Trump has engaged in illegal acts?

>2. Attempting to burn down the federal courthouse would probably violate federal law, one would think.

There have been multiple "arrests" on video, and in the video the individuals were not attempting to burn anything down, much less a federal courthouse, in fact they weren't even near a federal courthouse and had no materials in their hands to suggest they could burn anything down.

>3. You’re just speculating. There’s no reason to think the arrestees aren’t being mirandized and given access to counsel.

There is video of some of these "arrests" including the prior to the interactions, the initial interactions, the detention, the "arrest" and placement into unmarked vans...in these videos there was no Miranda given. Since when is verifiable video evidence speculation?

But yes, my point is even if a court ruled the Federal Government has this power, there would still be many other Constitutional protections that apply, and based on what we have seen there seems to be those kinds of violations based on verifiable video evidence. I have also yet to see anyone who was arrested be bonded out nor make a public statement through any attorney...where are these arrestees held? Have they been afforded the right to an attorney? Have they appeared before a Judge for bail?

[mindslight]

Taking a guess, the reason they're kidnapping many people just to release them without charges is because they're fishing for people with out of state IDs to strengthen the claim of federal jurisdiction. The lack of arrest paperwork fits with this - if they kept a paper trail of all their plainly unlawful attempts, it would risk upsetting whatever narrative they use to charge the unlucky ones.

[throwaway_USD]

It may also be partly about proactively anticipating civil lawsuits for false imprisonment and other violations of civil rights. If there is no record of these arrests it will frustrate future civil claims, where the Feds will just deny ever arresting claimants and for the most part unless on video there will be no evidence of the claim.