It said proposition 47 made it a misdemeanor..

The country will be here in 10 years, if there is no nuclear attack, but will continue to decline into socialism with technological progress hobbled by it but continuing in spite of it to the extent allowed. Some individuals will continue to be oppressed more than others. What are you doing about it?

I challenge the whole concept of continually being forced to pay more and more, especially for NOTHING i voted for, and for representatives who make no difference in their parties. Oregon can be the poster child for why democracy is a failure for humanity, because of the mob rule model. 51% of them are insane, the other 49% suffer. I do not think this country has 10 years left in it.

Being disgusted does not mean understanding what is wrong. A lot of people who are "disgusted" still support entitlements, spending, and controls. Almost no one challenges the premises of altruism and collectivism. Even on this forum we see mostly repetitive, shallow, conservative slogans and emoting

In the mainstream, correct, but that doesn't mean that it is not occurring at other levels, I have met more and more people who are disgusted with the whole setup, both sides, and the obvious manipulation. It gets more obvious as we go...

There is no debate because the collectivist, altruist, statist premises of the establishment intellectuals are not being challenged by the right, which has nothing to offer but faith and tradition while pandering to the more consistent left. Without ideas there is nothing to communicate.

There is no debate because there is no communication, it has to be 2 way, and there is mainly one way. That does not mean that that allows the liberals to just march in and impose their will, which is exactly where we are. Did you see the graphic posted that showed the majority of murders are done in 2% of the counties, and predominately is states that have imposed sanctuary laws or restrictive gun laws? That is not debate, but it certainly is a war on the rest of the people.

A Federal takeover of a state is not the solution to progressivism. There is no 'ideological war' because there are no serious ideas being debated, only the results of bad ideology left unchallenged while all we are left with is a Trump and anti-intellectual conservatives emotionally flailing with slogans. Emotional outbursts calling for marshal law are the bottom. The problem is not "Kalifornia" [sic].

That is only if the government will let that circus go on. It is the same thing in reverse, where Kalifornia declares they will do what they want (and not the people, but the political machine) and a lot of people feel powerless to stop it. Yet same state want huge Federal subsidies and grants to fund their insanity. There are many ways to fight them, when the decision to fight is made. I do believe there is a possibility of a federal takeover, and a federal governor installed to oversee new elections. I also believe there could be a move to pick and choose their own judges to defend, just as they have to attack. The ideological war is ramping up. I also think the argument can be made that the ideas and premises are no longer generally accepted, there is a group who believe the state can dictate, and a group still on the side of the people and democracy (although that is not the same as it was either).

No law can change the course of a nation based on the ideas and premises that are generally accepted. Laws are not self-enforcing, they are always interpreted, applied or ignored in a political and intellectual context. The notion dreaming of a Federal dictatorship over a state to stop the progressive statist trend to "return sanity" is preposterous. All that can come of it is more legal quagmires or open violence as abandonment of reason sinks the country into civil war or dictatorship. A specific insurrection not widely accepted may be stopped by law enforcement; the progressive trend in California and the nation can only be changed by the spread of better ideas.

ewv, I do not see how that argument can work, while you can sue a soup sandwhich, the use of an EO is also a way to overide until a court clearly states that it can't, and even then, just as courts have ignored clear law for political purposes (such as the immigration issue, ruled on by liberal judges and overturned) I do not see how this can be construed as you describe:

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

Clearly Kalifornias "Sanctuary State" meets that test, making it clearly in rebellion against the Federal government.

The original claim that invoking the act could not be legally obstructed isn't true. Anything can go to court. At some point these power struggles between the president and judge-shopping could erupt into open violence like the Civil War did unless someone backs down. At that point it's no longer a matter of the Insurrection Act or any other law; war is a breakdown in law, settled by open force.

Using the Civil War as an example, the acts by the states that formed the Confederacy were pretty severe, refuting all federal law and creating their own constitution. California's actions to date are much less defiant, limited to only a narrow range of federal laws, primarily immigration and drug laws, which makes the use of the Insurrection Act unlikely. However, the wording of the act specifically ties insurrection to conditions that either pose increased danger to the residents of a state, or a denial of their constitutional rights, and the inability or unwillingness of the state's governor to alleviate those conditions.

The President has implied that increasing rates of homicide in California can be tied to the state's action to protect alien criminals under its declaration of sanctuary. The cause behind an increase in the numbers in criminal activity can always be questioned, so unless there is a significant act of violence that can be tied to an illegal alien (like a terrorist event causing significant loss of life) that accusation can be easily questioned.

So long as such significantly polarized figures, such as Governor Brown and President Trump are involved, there's an element of negative feedback that ratchets up the confrontation. However, short of a lethal confrontation between state law enforcement and ICE (highly unlikely, since most LEOs in the state personally object to the sanctuary law), or an attempt by the state to secede, there is little likelihood the Insurrection Act will be invoked. Brown will be out of the picture by term limits next year, so the hostility may be defused well short of perilous ground. My intent is only to make people aware the power to carry out such severe action is available if states carry the intent of nullification too far.

There is nothing to stop state legal action against use of the Insurrection Act. We have already seen obstruction of even legitimate presidential authority by abuse of the judicial system in many ways.

The Federal government did get away with nationalizing the railroads in WWI and some major programs of FDR were blocked as unconstitutional, but none of that was related to the Insurrection Act.

The modern changes to the act extended it to domestic violence associated with natural disaster, public health emergencies, and acts of terrorism when a state cannot control it.

A legal challenge requiring proof that California's actions met the claim of insurrection is the one avenue available to put a roadblock on martial law. Even though the act leaves such judgement to the President, courts may dispute how serious illegal acts by the state have to be in order to be declared insurrectionist. So far, the President has decided that suing the state for refusing to support immigration laws is the proper and sufficient action. If the judgement goes against the state, and it continues to defy Federal authority, he has grounds to declare that as insurrectionist. Once the conditions supporting the claim of insurrection have been established, the subsequent actions can't be stopped.

If anything the scope of the act has been expanded under the G. W. Bush and Obama administrations to give the Executive absolute control over all national resources, both public and private in times of national crisis. That is a far more serious grant of power than the Patriot Act, but isn't well known to the public.

To date only Abraham Lincoln has exercised the dictatorial powers granted by the Insurrection Act. Woodrow Wilson came close to using those powers, declaring his right to nationalize railroads, and threatening to man the trains with National Guard troops. Wilson also put persons of Italian and German descent in holding camps, denying them the right of habeas corpus (meaning he didn't need to show proof that they posed a danger). FDR came close to exercising dictatorial powers, and was challenged in court because the overreach he attempted wasn't covered by the Insurrection Act.

Hopefully we won't see the invocation of the Insurrection Act, but if California tries to obstruct sending the state's National Guard to aid in border security that makes it a distinct possibility.

No law can exempt itself from court action. Any attempt to assert Federal control over California, even in a narrow legitimate realm, would be met with the usual judge shopping and decrees stopping and delaying it, with unpredictable results in the Supreme Court if it continued that far. And since much of the country shares the same leftist premises as California, the political backlash would be even more severe.

Declaring martial law would not "return sanity" as countering "progressives". The political behavior in California is a result of the ideas they hold that have been building nationally for over a century, not a temporary emotional outbreak.

The Insurrection Act for Federal intervention is for "domestic violence ... to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order" under "insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" or "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" .

It was never intended to control a state operating under a growing and widespread acceptance of a false ideology over time and could not possibly be a solution to that. An attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act for that would be another outright civil war. Dreaming about Federal dictatorship over "California" as a solution to growing progressivism is hopelessly anti-intellectual in its failure to understand the problem and what is required over time to solve it through the spread of proper ideas.

If they elected him it would the definitive "rigged" election...

We'll see--he may be waiting a long time.

"Trump fiendishly enjoys"
It reminds me of Peter Keating.

This schadenfreude may be the crux of how people went from "these policies are bad" to "these people are bad".

When they were debating where ATVs and sleds would be aloud in state parks, I didn't sense there was much effort put into how to maximize the parks' value for all citizens. They could have looked at which areas lend themselves to wildlife viewing and peaceful hikes and which areas lend themselves to ATV trails. Instead it was more like this:
ATVs Everywhere: Some hippie family from Madison who goes there to photograph birds is going to have to find a new hobby because I'm gonna be rev'ing up that two-stroke engine.
Ban ATVs Entirely: I'm laughing my head off at some poor family from Fond du Lac whose main vacation activity is to ride around like kids and now they'll be have one fewer place play.

I do not understand the fiendish enjoyment at creating problems for people and observing the theater.

It seems like it's minority of Peter Keatings of the world who step on the place where the housekeeper just cleaned for theater. He is bereft of any personal desires for himself. He tries to fill the emptiness by watching others react to him. He needs them to look up to him, to be nervous around him, to be sycophantic toward him, hate him, anything.

The "Governor in waiting" is just as bad if not worse. Gavin Newsom is from San Fran and ULTRA liberal

Hang on, it aint over yet...although the National Guard thing will be better entertainment, when Oregon and Kalifornia refuse and Trump says they are in insurrection and says he will dissolve the state government and install a military governor until new elections are held.

My point was simply the enjoyment of the theater of watching leftist heads explode, something Trump fiendishly enjoys.

I have always loved that one, so true...a lot of them are perfect there....

"possibly cutting off all government contracts to California businesses."
Maybe some people there would agree with the principle of gov't taxing people earnings and then letting politicians using their control over those funds to maintain power. They'd be eager for when the pendulum swings and they get the power to tax and reward their allies.