Arizona Eagletarian: Insurrection Act? Really Donald?

From NPR:

President Trump threatened Monday to take military action in American cities if the violent demonstrations that have been taking place in recent days aren't stamped out.

"If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them," Trump said in a short statement in the Rose Garden at the White House.

To do that, the president would need to invoke what's known as the Insurrection Act of 1807. The original text of the act, which has been amended several times since it was first passed, reads as follows:

An Act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

APPROVED, March 3, 1807.

From Danielle Crockett, U C Berkeley School of Law,

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Congress amended the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Act enables the President to deploy the military “to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” The amended Act expands the language of the original Act to include natural disasters, epidemics, or other serious public health emergencies, terrorist attacks or incidents, or other conditions. Opponents of the amendment, most notably all fifty governors, criticize the amendment as a presidential power grab aimed at suppressing the power of the states and increasing the role of the military in domestic affairs. [...]

Isn't it quite conspicuous that the president did NOT seek to invoke the Insurrection Act to protect (ANYONE) as a result of plainly obvious worldwide Covid-19 Pandemic?

Conclusion

“It was never the purpose of the Constitution . . . that the militia should be sent to execute the laws, merely because they are not being at all times diligently executed or perfectly enforced in the particular area in question.” Despite critics’ fears, however, the amended Insurrection Act does not demonstrate any dangerous intent on the part of Congress or of the Bush Administration. Nonetheless, the amendment does indicate a general misunderstanding of the Insurrection Act’s historical meaning and application. While this failure reflects poorly on Congress, the Act’s amendment was not, in the words of one critic, “a stealth maneuver . . . [that] will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law.”

Ms. Crockett [Ginty], who now appears to be in private practice, may well have correctly assessed motives at work in Congress when amending the Insurrection Act in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. But more than a decade before the 2016 election which put a madman in the White House, she does appear to have suffered a failure of imagination as to whether the Act NOW "will actually encourage the President..." to do the equivalent whether he calls it martial law or not.

In a most profound and timely essay, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, Admiral Mike Mullin wrote this, as published on TheAtlantic.com today (June 2, 2020):

It sickened me yesterday to see security personnel—including members of the National Guard—forcibly and violently clear a path through Lafayette Square to accommodate the president's visit outside St. John's Church. I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump's leadership, but we are at an inflection point, and the events of the past few weeks have made it impossible to remain silent.

Whatever Trump's goal in conducting his visit, he laid bare his disdain for the rights of peaceful protest in this country, gave succor to the leaders of other countries who take comfort in our domestic strife, and risked further politicizing the men and women of our armed forces.

There was little good in the stunt.

While no one should ever condone the violence, vandalism, and looting that has exploded across our city streets, neither should anyone lose sight of the larger and deeper concerns about institutional racism that have ignited this rage.

As a white man, I cannot claim perfect understanding of the fear and anger that African Americans feel today. But as someone who has been around for a while, I know enough—and I’ve seen enough—to understand that those feelings are real and that they are all too painfully founded.

We must, as citizens, address head-on the issue of police brutality and sustained injustices against the African American community. We must, as citizens, support and defend the right—indeed, the solemn obligation—to peacefully assemble and to be heard. These are not mutually exclusive pursuits.

And neither of these pursuits will be made easier or safer by an overly aggressive use of our military, active duty or National Guard. The United States has a long and, to be fair, sometimes troubled history of using the armed forces to enforce domestic laws. The issue for us today is not whether this authority exists, but whether it will be wisely administered.

I remain confident in the professionalism of our men and women in uniform. They will serve with skill and with compassion.

Whether or not any reader agrees with that declaration, there is immense power in a leader of Admiral Mullin's experience laying down a reputation for the men and women of the Armed Forces to live up to [see #28 under Principles to Live By].

They will obey lawful orders. But I am less confident in the soundness of the orders they will be given by this commander in chief, and I am not convinced that the conditions on our streets, as bad as they are, have risen to the level that justifies a heavy reliance on military troops. Certainly, we have not crossed the threshold that would make it appropriate to invoke the provisions of the Insurrection Act.

Furthermore, I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.

Even in the midst of the carnage we are witnessing, we must endeavor to see American cities and towns as our homes and our neighborhoods. They are not “battle spaces” to be dominated, and must never become so.

We must ensure that African Americans—indeed, all Americans—are given the same rights under the Constitution, the same justice under the law, and the same consideration we give to members of our own family. Our fellow citizens are not the enemy, and must never become so.