The President Has the Constitutional Power to Restore Order

The President Has the Constitutional Power to Restore Order 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/the-president-has-the-constitutional-power-to-restore-order-he-must-act/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=first

Excerpt: Under Article IV of the Constitution, the United States guarantees every state a republican form of government, protection against invasion, and — on request of the state government — protection from domestic violence. In furtherance of this provision, Congress enacted legislation, most notably, the Insurrection Act of 1807, which empowers the president “to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.” Obviously, suppressing such attacks requires deploying the United States armed forces as needed. Following Hurricane Katrina, the Insurrection Act was beefed up to enable presidents to respond to natural disasters, public-health emergencies, terrorist attacks, and other catastrophic conditions. As one might expect, state governors worried that this amendment was a federal power grab that would erode the authority of state and local governments over their internal affairs, and thrust the military into domestic policing. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 had long barred the deployment of the armed forces for domestic law-enforcement purposes. Posse comitatus, however, has always been subject to express constitutional and statutory exceptions, and the Insurrection Act is such an exception. One effect of the Insurrection Act and its amendments has thus been to bolster the power of the federal government to respond to domestic terrorism. Although the Constitution calls for a state to request federal assistance to combat domestic violence before the president acts, that condition is more apparent than real. As already noted, Article IV endows the president with unilateral authority to put down insurrection and invasion. “Insurrection,” of course, is a violent uprising against the authority of the state. Therefore, it encompasses the concept of broad-scale domestic violence. The Insurrection Act codifies this reality by expressly empowering the president to suppress domestic violence and conspiracies to carry it out. It is a fair concern that modern Insurrection Act expansions of federal power to react to natural disasters overrun federalist principles — although, as a practical matter, when states actually confront a natural disaster or pandemic, governors are quick to plead for federal assistance, rather than fret over what doing so portends for their power over their own affairs. When it comes to violent uprisings, though, federalism concerns are beside the point. Washington has an express constitutional obligation to protect the people of the states, and the republican form of government, from attack. [Well. Isn’t this an interesting reading of the laws. It makes perfect sense, and I think McCarthy is on solid legal ground. The very first use of the US Army after the Revolution was when President Washington used them to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, wasn’t it? Posse Comitatus didn’t take that authority away from the President, it simply restricted what the US Army could be used for. The President could certainly nationalize the local National Guard (Posse Comitatus applies only to the Army, NOT to the National Guard, Navy, Marines, or Air Force) or another service to respond to violent, organized civil unrest. Of course, that President would need "a pair" the size of cannonballs. And, of course it would take all of five minutes for the Congressional Democrats to vote articles of impeachment, again. I added emphasis. Ron P.]

ReplyForward