Biden reverses Trump orders that cracked down on vandalism of monuments

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
President Biden on Friday issued an executive order that revokes a handful of orders from former President Trump, including several tied to the defacement and vandalism of public monuments amid last year’s racial justice protests.

Mr. Biden’s order negates an order from June 2020 that made it the policy of the United States to prosecute people to the “fullest extent” of the law if they damage or deface public property.

Biden reverses Trump orders that cracked down on vandalism of monuments

Why on earth would Biden tear down the barriers to lawlessness?
 

The Narrow Way

Master Herbalist
Supporter
Apr 25, 2011
928
1,086
63
Ohio
Visit site
✟150,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I appreciate your posts, HARK! They are refreshing. It's rather shocking to me that so many Christians are supportive of Biden and have such a HATRED for President TRUMP. Biden stands for EVERYTHING Christians should be against! And yet, a large % of the members here seem to think otherwise.

[STAFF EDITED]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Maybe:
“The order from Mr. Trump also said it was the policy of the U.S. to withhold federal support from state and local governments and law enforcement agencies if they fail to protect public monuments and spaces from vandalism.”
this had something to do with it?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Maybe:
“The order from Mr. Trump also said it was the policy of the U.S. to withhold federal support from state and local governments and law enforcement agencies if they fail to protect public monuments and spaces from vandalism.”
this had something to do with it?

Probably everything to do with it.
 
Upvote 0

GirdYourLoins

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2016
1,220
929
Brighton, UK
✟122,682.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
President Biden on Friday issued an executive order that revokes a handful of orders from former President Trump, including several tied to the defacement and vandalism of public monuments amid last year’s racial justice protests.

Mr. Biden’s order negates an order from June 2020 that made it the policy of the United States to prosecute people to the “fullest extent” of the law if they damage or deface public property.

Biden reverses Trump orders that cracked down on vandalism of monuments

Why on earth would Biden tear down the barriers to lawlessness?
Its very simple really. We know a lot of the unrest was stirred up by left wing extremists, people who would have voted for Biden. Its along standing left wing tactic to stir up as much protest, industrial action, hatred and civil unrest durng right wing governments in order to make them look worse. It was well reported that Antifa were behind a lot of the, lets say more robust protesting. Then as soon as there is a left wing government (even if not as left wing as they would like) they stop all action to make life seem better under left wing leadership. The BLM protest couldnt have been better for them if they had designed it themselves.

Now we have a left wing government they have all but stopped. The genuine BLM protesters still have some action, but the large scale left wing fuelled activity has stopped.

So now to bring it back to Biden, what he has done is revoke an order that would be used to bring his supporters to justice, people who helped him get into power.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
He didn't legalize vandalism.

He doesn't have the authority to legalize it; but clearly he can drag his feet on enforcing the law.

Look at the damage that was done to this statue of Jackson:

racial_injustice_monuments_florida_05398_c0-577-3612-2682_s885x516.jpg


What has Biden done to find the culprits?

If I had dropped a gum wrapper on the White House lawn; I'm sure that he could find me.

What's wrong with Jackson anyway?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,022
23,929
Baltimore
✟551,663.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
He doesn't have the authority to legalize it; but clearly he can drag his feet on enforcing the law.

Look at the damage that was done to this statue of Jackson:

racial_injustice_monuments_florida_05398_c0-577-3612-2682_s885x516.jpg


What has Biden done to find the culprits?

Why would Biden or his administration do anything about it? As far as I’m aware, this was city property and vandalizing city property isn’t a federal crime.

If I had dropped a gum wrapper on the White House lawn; I'm sure that he could find me.

The White House is federal property.

What's wrong with Jackson anyway?

The Indian Removal Act is the big one. He also owned a bunch of slaves and opposed abolition.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Not unless he enlisted at age 9, no.

President Andrew Jackson joined the military to fight in the Revolutionary War at age 13.

Andrew Jackson

Either way, what would it matter?

18 U.S. Code § 1369 - Destruction of veterans’ memorials

Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy, any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1369 - Destruction of veterans’ memorials
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,022
23,929
Baltimore
✟551,663.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
President Andrew Jackson joined the military to fight in the Revolutionary War at age 13.

Andrew Jackson

Yep, I edited my post accordingly.


18 U.S. Code § 1369 - Destruction of veterans’ memorials

Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy, any structure, plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1369 - Destruction of veterans’ memorials
You should read the rest of that page, specifically “subsection b”:

A circumstance described in this subsection is that—
(1)
in committing the offense described in subsection (a), the defendant travels or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses the mail or an instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce; or
(2)
the structure, plaque, statue, or other monument described in subsection (a) is located on property owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the Federal Government.

IOW, this law only pertains to people who either attack federal property, or who use the mail, or who travel across state lines.

I don’t know who defaced the Jackson statue (it’s happened several times), but I’m gonna guess they’re probably locals.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
IOW, this law only pertains to people who either attack federal property, or who use the mail, or who travel across state lines.

I don’t know who defaced the Jackson statue (it’s happened several times), but I’m gonna guess they’re probably locals.

Well isn't it up to law enforcement to get those facts, instead of guessing?

It's not like they have to drive from D.C..

  1. Jacksonville — FBI
    www.fbi.gov › contact-us › field-offices
    Along with our main office in Jacksonville, we have seven satellite offices, known as resident agencies, in the area. Daytona Beach. Counties covered: Flagler, Putnam, Lake, and Volusia; Fort ...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,022
23,929
Baltimore
✟551,663.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well isn't it up to law enforcement to get those facts, instead of guessing?
Yeah, local law enforcement until there’s something indicating federal jurisdiction.

But to take this a step further - the statute doesn’t protect every memorial to anybody who was a veteran. It specifically calls out those memorials “commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States.” The Andrew Jackson statue in questynotes on one side that he was the first governor of Florida under the US flag, and on the other side that he was the namesake of Jacksonville. Nothing there about him being a veteran (btw, he was more famously a veteran of the War of 1812), or even president. So, it seems to me that this statute wouldn’t apply regardless of who committed the act.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
But to take this a step further - the statute doesn’t protect every memorial to anybody who was a veteran. It specifically calls out those memorials “commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States.” The Andrew Jackson statue in questynotes on one side that he was the first governor of Florida under the US flag, and on the other side that he was the namesake of Jacksonville. Nothing there about him being a veteran (btw, he was more famously a veteran of the War of 1812), or even president. So, it seems to me that this statute wouldn’t apply regardless of who committed the act.

The fact the the statue has Jackson sporting a military uniform, with a sword strapped to his side, would lead me to believe that it might be related to Jackson's military service. Just a hunch. Detectives are pretty good with coming up with hunches, and then investigating them.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, local law enforcement until there’s something indicating federal jurisdiction

It doesn't work that way when the Feds raid California pot farms. It didn't work that way at Waco. Why the exception in this case?
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
As a teenaged courier. What does that matter?

If you were the one who was out there putting your life on the line to defend your countrymen; I'm sure that your perspective of what matters would be influenced.

The guy who peels potatoes, in a war zone, is every bit as much a veteran, as the General who sits at a desk in D.C. IMO.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,072
7,400
✟343,063.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
It doesn't work that way when the Feds raid California pot farms. It didn't work that way at Waco. Why the exception in this case?
Growing pot is against federal law always, so they obviously have jurisdiction. ATF only got involved in Waco after they got a call from the local cops. The federal government only has jurisdiction in cases like the Jackson statue if it is on federal property or the parties were involved in interstate commerce. The FBI isn't going to expend resources investigating what might maybe possibly be a violation of federal law.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Growing pot is against federal law always, so they obviously have jurisdiction. ATF only got involved in Waco after they got a call from the local cops. The federal government only has jurisdiction in cases like the Jackson statue if it is on federal property or the parties were involved in interstate commerce. The FBI isn't going to expend resources investigating what might maybe possibly be a violation of federal law.

Police aren't qualified to interpret the law. That is up to the courts. Police make arrests based on suspicious activity.

This looks suspicious enough to me to warrant an investigation.

By the way, the FBI technically have no jurisdiction unless the local Sheriff gives them jurisdiction.

This is settled law that goes back to England.

See: Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,072
7,400
✟343,063.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Police aren't qualified to interpret the law. That is up to the courts. Police make arrests based on suspicious activity.

This looks suspicious enough to me to warrant an investigation.

By the way, the FBI technically have no jurisdiction unless the local Sheriff gives them jurisdiction.

This is settled law that goes back to England.

See: Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
What about it makes you think a federal crime might have taken place? It's a strictly local matter.

And you are dead wrong about the jurisdiction of the FBI, and there is no way there could be settled law that goes back to England, because England isn't a federal country. And Printz doesn't say what you are claiming. Printz says that the federal government cannot force a state executive to perform any action on behalf of the federal government. It's an important decision, but not at all related to your claim.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
54,680
8,036
US
✟1,060,307.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
What about it makes you think a federal crime might have taken place?

What makes you think that one hasn't?

Clearly a crime was committed, that very may well have violated a Federal law.

It seems that there is more likelihood that there will be more of an investigation as to whether or not a Federal law was broken, during a routine traffic stop.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,072
7,400
✟343,063.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
What makes you think that one hasn't?

Clearly a crime was committed, that very may well have violated a Federal law.

It seems that there is more likelihood that there will be more of an investigation as to whether or not a Federal law was broken, during a routine traffic stop.
The FBI isn't going to waste resources investigating a crime that they probably don't have jurisdiction over.

I don't want to take this thread off topic; but you would do well to do a little research on this subject.
No need. I spent a week on Printz in law school. It's one of the first things you learn in Con Law. I also studied New York V. US, which was an earlier case that did the same thing as Printz, but for the legislature. Together they form what is known as the "anti-commandeering doctrine", which in a nutshell says that the feds can't force the states to do anything. Personally I think that New York V. US and Printz are both wrong from a legal-historical view, a textualist view, and a policy view, but I don't make the law and ideology often gets in way of what the most obvious ruling should be.

But neither case have anything to do with your claim that the FBI only has jurisdiction if granted it by the local sheriff. The so-called "Constitutional Sheriff" movement is only about 70 years old and has no legal or constitutional backing. Sheriff"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0