The deployment of California National Guard troops and active-duty U.S. Marines onto the streets of Los Angeles is an assault on federalism, violates federal law and manifests a dangerous pattern of governmental behavior in defiance of constitutional principles and the rule of law.

None of this was the case until President Donald Trump, against the express wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, federalized the CA National Guard, became their commander in chief, and ordered them to thwart both lawful and unlawful demonstrators in Los Angeles.

There, agents of the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were attempting to make warrantless arrests of persons whom they and their colleagues believed were unlawfully present in the U.S. Demonstrators soon arrived, some of whom peaceably assembled and vociferously objected to the arrests, and some of whom attempted to interfere with them violently.

Clearly, acts of physical interference with even unlawful arrests are themselves unlawful, but condemning government behavior, waving Mexican flags, cheering on those who have been arrested, even standing in the way of federal agents until ordered to move are all protected acts of expression and historically recognized acts of civil disobedience.

The conflicts between some — not all — demonstrators and federal agents at times grew violent, and local and state authorities ordered police to protect the federal agents and keep the demonstrators at bay — but not silence them — while the feds carried out their tasks.

Then the president ordered in the federalized National Guard and then he ordered in active-duty Marines.

The Constitution makes the president the commander in chief of U.S. troops and of state National Guard units when the latter are called into federal service by Congress or by the president. In numerous statutes, Congress has defined when and under what circumstances the president may command state military personnel.

The latter are familiar to most Americans. They are part-time civilian/soldiers, our neighbors, none of whom are on active duty but for a few administrators, and they are typically deployed unarmed to assist local law enforcement when asked by a state governor. We have all seen them selflessly helping rescue folks and delivering aid after natural disasters.

Can National Guard troops be used for law enforcement? That depends on who summons them.

Who is in charge of law enforcement?

The Constitution retains the police power in the states.

Federalism was reinforced dramatically as recently as 1997 in a case called Printz v. U.S. There, Congress enacted gun regulations and ordered the states to enforce them.

Congress itself has also spoken to this, though not in the modern era. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 absolutely prohibits the use of federal troops for law enforcement purposes unless the governor has requested them, or unless in the case of invasion or rebellion. The modern Congress has defined “rebellion” as collective acts of violence intending to overthrow or substantially destabilize the government.

Thus, we can see that federalizing of the National Guard — which transforms them into federal troops — actually disables them from performing law enforcement duties which they could lawfully have performed when under Gov. Newsom’s command. Moreover, since there is no invasion or rebellion as the laws define them, there is no lawful basis for all these troops on the streets.

The government argues that the current state of affairs in Los Angeles constitutes an emergency and thus it has broad powers to address it.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no emergency exception in the Constitution unleashing the government. Even during the War Between the States — though ruling afterward — the court found that the government retains the obligation to abide and recognize all liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. The emergency argument is not only unconstitutional but extra-constitutional. It was crafted by those who reject their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the supreme law of the land.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the purpose of government is to secure our liberties, not to look for ways to assault them. Are we slouching toward authoritarianism? NO. The events in Los Angeles are one giant leap in that lamentable irreversible direction.