What Actions Can a President Take in a State

[MineralMan]

when some event happens where the local authorities are in conflict with a protest or demonstration? I'm not sure that there's really anything a President can do in such a situation that is rapidly developing and is then over. After the fact, the Justice Department can be ordered to conduct an investigation, certainly. But at the time of the actual event, the President doesn't really have a role, nor does the Federal government, as far as I can tell. The President can also speak out in such situations, but that, too, would be after the fact.

So, can anyone think of some action President Obama might have taken during last night's incidents in Oakland, CA? If so, perhaps we can discuss them.

[limpyhobbler]

1. He could have made a speech last week about respecting the right to protest.

[JoePhilly]

3. And it would have been called a "pretty speech".

[MineralMan]

4. A general comment? Yes, he could do that, but that still

would not affect the response of the local authorities. The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the Constitution. I'm not sure that right extends to taking control of private property, though. I believe that refers to the public square. Property is also protected in the Constitution.

I don't believe the President can say, "Protesters should be able to enter and control private property at their will." I don't think he can say that at all. And so, he hasn't said that.

The right to petition the government by assembling is a very important one, but it does not extend to the confiscation of private property. For a President to approve of such an action would be pretty much impossible, I think.

[limpyhobbler]

14. His comments carry a moral authority.

A general comment? Yes, he could do that, but that still would not affect the response of the local authorities.

It might have affected the actions of the department or individual officers. The president does have some moral authority.

The right to peaceably assemble is guaranteed in the Constitution. I'm not sure that right extends to taking control of private property, though. I believe that refers to the public square. Property is also protected in the Constitution.

Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center is not private property. It is owned by the city of Oakland. Anyway, the police don't refrain from brutalizing protesters just because the protest is on public property. Ask Scott Olsen.

I don't believe the President can say, "Protesters should be able to enter and control private property at their will." I don't think he can say that at all. And so, he hasn't said that.

He doesn't say that because it would make no sense. He could have said something like "Political protest is a time-honored American tradition. Peaceful protesters should be treated with respect. If local authorities engage in unreasonable force against political protesters, the federal government with be investigating."

The right to petition the government by assembling is a very important one, but it does not extend to the confiscation of private property. For a President to approve of such an action would be pretty much impossible, I think.

Then it's a good thing nobody ever suggested that.


By the way I'm not saying this is a big deal. I never even thought about the idea of what Obama can do with Oakland until I saw your post and replied to it. I understand he can't do much about it. It's not his job. But it is not like he could do nothing.

[TheWraith]

5. Which would immediately be derided here as "just pretty words!!!!11"

Not to mention that it's rather hard to stick up for "the right to protest" when the protesters are moving into the realm of trespassing.

[TheWraith]

2. You're correct, the POTUS doesn't have authority over local police. nt

[MineralMan]

6. The Justice Department does, though, if the local police

interfere with the rights of citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution. However, I'm not sure they can act pre-emptively unless there is a pattern of such behavior and after a federal court has ruled. That happened during the Civil Rights movement, giving the President authority to act to protect rights. However, that was after the courts had ruled.

The President is very limited in what he can do with regard to states and local authorities. After the fact, the Justice Department has great authority to investigate and prosecute violation of civil rights, however.

[T S Justly]

7. Indictments could be handed down today, a Sunday ...

If we had a President.

[MineralMan]

10. Really? With no investigation beforehand?

I don't think so. The Justice Department moves slowly, and investigates thoroughly before issuing indictments. What would the charges be in those indictments, and against whom? Do you have names?

The Occupy folks were engaged in civil disobedience, and good for them for doing that. However, civil disobedience often comes with arrests and other actions. It's all part of the process. If there are no arrests, there is no civil disobedience. Clearly, they knew that entering and occupying that building was illegal. Clearly, they know that the police would be there, since they announced their intent beforehand. Clearly, they knew that people would be arrested and that the police would try to prevent them from trespassing on that property.

We do have a President. We have one who knows the limitations of government.

[MineralMan]

8. In Oakland, the Occupy folks announced in advance that they

planned to enter and Occupy a vacant building. I remember reading that here on DU. Last night, they attempted to carry out that plan. Should the President have told Oakland to allow them to take over that building, regardless of its ownership? I'm not sure how a President could do that, frankly, since trespassing is against the law. I don't believe a President can authorize citizens to break existing laws.

[BeHereNow]

9. He could pick up a phone and ask Brown,

"What in the hell is going on there?"
"Get your police under control."
BHN

[MineralMan]

12. Do you know that he did not do that?

I don't know that. I don't know what conversations he or his staff had with California authorities. I don't make any assumptions about that at all. Further, those were not Brown's police. Like the President, Governor Brown has no authority over local police. In fact, he is constrained from ordering police to do or not do things by his own Constitution. He does control the State Police, but I'm not sure what their role would have been, either.

[edhopper]

11. A portion of all police force funding comes from the Federal Government

he could tell them they are jeopordizing those funds. he could also ask the DOJ to investigate abuses by the PD.
Doing nothing and remaining silent is not what good people do.

[MineralMan]

13. I don't believe that funding is under the direct control of

the President. I already pointed out that he could order the Justice Department to investigate any abuses that occurred. That would not necessarily require a public announcement, though. Such an announcement may come, but I don't know whether it will or not.

Again, I cannot see any action the President could take before any of this occurred, which was my question. He could ask the local authorities to exercise restraint, of course, and for all I know he did. However, the local authorities are not subordinate to the President and could ignore any such request.

[cthulu2016]

15. Little Rock. Katrina.

You are mixing up a general question and a specific question.

What could Obama have done in Oakland last night? Nothing.

What could a president do under other circumstances? A lot. If the Oakland police were going house-to-house shooting people the president could declare it an insurection of some sort and send in the military. Sort out the details later.

Or the justice dept could find a federal judge to issue an emergency order enjoining mass civil rights violation, with the army then going in to enforce.

[MineralMan]

16. The Oakland PD is already under federal sanctions,

and things look like they're coming to a head. There's a thread on this in GD.

[EFerrari]

17. The OPD is under Federal supervision and has been, iirc, for about nine years.

So in this case, yes, it is completely appropriate to ask what the president will do about this situation.

[MineralMan]

18. There's a federal court involved with that.

The President will not tell a federal court how to rule. That simply will not happen, and that isn't the President's role. He might ask the cabinet secretary to check on that for him, but he's not going to interfere with an ongoing court case. In face, that may be one of the reasons he's not speaking about the Oakland PD.

President's do not interfere with ongoing judicial cases. The judge rules, not the President.

With regard to that federal supervision, it's not the President's call. Surely you know that, right?

[EFerrari]

19. Between telling the court how to rule and showing interest in the topic

there is an array of gestures the president could make. Surely you know that, right?

[MineralMan]

20. Yes, and almost none of them would be done publicly.

Presidents do most of what they do out of public view. There are reasons for that. When a President wishes to act publicly, he gives a speech. When he wishes something to be done, he speaks to the people who will do it.