"There is no police power in the federal Constitution. The police power is left to the states. To the extent the President can send federal officers into Portland, Oregon, and other cities, it should be to protect federal property.
The President cannot save Portland from itself, and he should not. He cannot save the other cities either." RCP
"When people move out, the tax base collapses and crime goes up, the people will either change their behavior or be democratically marginalized in their voting power. If life goes on as normal, or more people move in to embrace what is happening, then they've chosen it, or the problems have been exaggerated by conservatives, as they claim. Let the market decide by letting the actions of a free people control their fate.
The President should withdraw from Oregon and not send supplemental help to these other cities. Instead, he can campaign on their descent to chaos at the hands of Democratic mayors.
A President sending in a police force to a city is a dangerous precedent that will be expanded upon by future presidents, even though they lack a general police power. A city allowed to choose its own fate is a positive precedent, from which we can all draw lessons.
Let Portland burn or not. Let the other cities descend into violence or not. But let the cities decide without intervention from Washington." RCP
There are federal police forces, but they all exist to deal with violations of FEDERAL law. They were justified when created or developed as regulatory in nature and/or investigative tools intended to provide information for decision making. The FBI began its existence as a small group manned by lawyers and accountants. It stayed that way until Hoover found it useful to his personal needs..
I agree with the opinion expressed by the author of this piece. The US is a federal republic. Much power was denied to the federal government by the states who were and are the contracting parties in the federal constitution.
The ever present consolidating US nationalists have striven endlessly to expand the power of the federal government through the constitutional interpretative power of the federal courts by using such devices as the commerce clause and the 14th Amendment but there limits to the elasticity of the document.
And, of course, there was the outcome of the Civil War which might have settled the matter in favor of federal power but did not because the victorious states found in the post-war years that they needed the political support of the defeated states. To achieve that end the defeated Confederates were restored to power as the occupation forces were withdrawn.
We should remember that there exists the "Insurrection Act" of 1807. It has often been used in US history and it may be again although I would advise caution in its application.
Having always been an original intent constitutionalist, I would be a hypocrite if I supported federal occupation and rule of cities and states that resist federal authority in their internal affairs. pl