The Insurrection Act of 1807

[brooklynite]

10 U.S. Code § 251. Federal aid for State governments

Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

The President CANNOT "send in the troops" without being asked.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. Thanks for posting. NT

[roamer65]

2. Correct and The Posse Comitatus Act in play as well.

Federal troops cannot be used for law enforcement.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

5. PCA doesn't apply for actions taken under the Insurrection Act

Posse Comitatus has exceptions and invocation of the Insurrection Act is one of them. The Army and Marines were deployed to Los Angeles during the riots. Same with the Detroit riots, though I believe that was Army only.

[BusyBeingBest]

3. There has not been an insurrection against the government of any state.

No government body is being overthrown. Actually, the closest we've come to an overthrow/insurrection was when armed protesters stormed the Michigan capitol/state house to demand restaurants open and to get haircuts, if I'm recalling correctly. That was Donnie Dump's fighting 101st trailer park battalion.

[sarisataka]

4. 10 U.S. Code§ 253.Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1)

so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2)

opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

Yes, he can.

Eisenhower and JFK used section 252 over the objection of Governors during desegregation

Also if you consider the purpose of the Act, it would be ridiculous to have a law to allow the use of the military against a state that is in rebellion where the state could veto that action.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

6. Yep.

The more recent usage of it for riots (LA '92, Detroit '67) were through requests from the Governors, but the other sections of the Act do not require it.

Edited to add- Governors could challenge it in court. They could argue that the State is still in control and not failing or refusing to maintain control. However, even without the conservative leaning, Courts are traditionally very hesitant to curb government or executive power during a crisis, and, if the States want to use they arguement, they need to at least credibly show they are actually attempting to control things. Rampant unopposed looting like what was seen in NYC, multiple officers getting shot, etc is not going to help sway an already hesitant court that things are in control.

[crickets]

9. Jeffrey Toobin on governors vs president under Insurrection Act

Heard last night on CNN speaking to Anderson Cooper:

The military can only come in

1. at the request of the governors.

2. without need of governors' requests only in order to vindicate Constitutional rights , e.g. Eisenhower and desegregation. The president cannot do this under current circumstances without the request of the states' governors because no vindication of Constitutional rights is involved. He feels trump won't actually go through with the threat nationwide because he knows the governors won't let him.

Toobin feels that this addresses any issues regarding governors' and states' powers re the Insurrection Act.

[sarisataka]

10. No disrespect to Mr Toobin but,

so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection

The unrest in the Twin Cities has affected Postal service, banking, public transportation, access to prescription medications, fire and police response to emergencies just as some examples. Thousands of residents have limited or no access to these services.

I am sure other cities have at least some similar situations. That, in my not legally trained opinion, seems to adequately meet the criteria of the above section.

I believe I heard that no President has ever invoked section 253, instead primarily using 251 where the state requests military aid. If Trump proceeds there could be challenges in court but likely it would be fait accompli before a ruling is made.

[crickets]

11. I see your point.

In the end, trump will understand less about this than either of us (it confuses me, I admit) and will likely end up doing whatever he likes, as usual. My hope is that it doesn't go that far, and if it does, someone clarifies the Act so that none of us has to discuss these uncertainties again. The stakes are too high.

[sarisataka]

12. I agree

The captain of the ship can read neither map nor compass and couldn't tell which way the wind was blowing in a hurricane.

My hope is the military. I spent some years in the MPs and infantry and we discussed many what ifs. In discussions of having to operate in US territory, no one is especially comfortable. And that was assuming cooperation with civilian authorities.

The fact that there already noise coming from the Pentagon questioning the use of the military speaks loudly to me. It sounds like even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has voiced some concerns. Most would blow such things off, but the military has a tradition of keeping complaints out of the public.

While I would not expect mutiny to a lawful order, there will be push back by active forces to be used primarily in support roles to the NG. Ironically it would be a reversal of the usual relationship.

[jmg257]

7. Sorry its not 1807.

Much (law) has changed.

Try title 10 s252

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 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.


But:

Congress has also enacted a number of statutes that authorize the use of land and naval forces to execute their objective. The Posse Comitatus Act outlaws the willful use of any part of the Army or Air Force to execute the law unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. Nov 6, 2018

Call in the Marines!

[EX500rider]

8. BBC: "George Floyd: Can President Trump deploy the military?"

"The Insurrection Act

Has the law been used before?
According to the Congressional Research Service, the Insurrection Act has been used dozens of times in the past, although not for almost three decades.

It was last invoked in 1992 by former US President George HW Bush during race riots in Los Angeles.

The law was used throughout the 1950s and 60s during the civil rights era by three different presidents, including when there were objections from state governors.

President Dwight Eisenhower faced objections when he used the law in 1957 to send US troops to Arkansas to control a protest at a school, where black and white children were being taught together."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52893540

[AntiFascist]

13. Blue states can fight back using the Second Amendment n/t