Lawyers! Please tell us what you know about the 'Insurrection Act '

[icymist]

I've heard this come up on a few threads and I believe that most DU'ers would benefit from knowing about this act, it's history, and what it's meaning could potentially mean if enacted. Thank you in advance for your time.

[Raydawg1234]

1. I'm no lawyer

but I do know enough to know that looting does not qualify is "insurection". Which is open defiance of the government. Therefore, any declaration of martial law by the federal gov. would be an ilegal act.

[Waya]

2. Title 10, chapter 15

§ 331. Federal aid for State governments
§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law
§ 334. Proclamation to disperse
§ 335. Guam and Virgin Islands included as “State”
<§ 336. Repealed.>



§ 331. Federal aid for State governments


Release date: 2004-03-18

Whenever there is an insurrections 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.



§ 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority


Release date: 2004-03-18

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 or Territory 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.



§ 333. Interference with State and Federal law


Release date: 2004-03-18

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.



§ 334. Proclamation to disperse


Release date: 2004-03-18

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.


335. Guam and Virgin Islands included as “State”


Release date: 2004-03-18

For purposes of this chapter, the term “State” includes the unincorporated territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands.



§ 336. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–513, title V, § 511(11)(B), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2921]


Release date: 2004-03-18

Section, added Pub. L. 90–496, § 12, Aug. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 841, included Virgin Islands within “State”. See section 335 of this title.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html

[icymist]

4. Waya, If you are a lawyer, could you also tell what this means to you?

What I'm looking for is a lawyer to kindly share their opinion with us. Waya, if you are a lawyer, I don't mean to offend you, I just believe we all at DU need to know what this 'Insurrection Act' means, what it can do, how it is inacted, and in under what circumstances it could be. I don't mean to offend you but with such wording left to the layman as "Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces" it scares the Hell out of him. Please, if your time allows, use your expertise and explain this in a layman's terms! Thank you again, in advance.

[FormerRepublican]

3. Sounds like we need to use it to deal with Washington DC

[icymist]

5. Kick!

:kick:

[Waya]

6. No, I ain't no lawyer....

In the case of this disaster - what they're saying is that Bush was forced to utilize the Insurrection Act because Governor Blanco refused to declare Martial Law and officially request the the Feds send in the troops.

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents a President from sending federal troops into a state without the direct request of the Governor. And since they are saying that Blanco refused to request this action - the President went around her (over her head so to speak) and used the Insurrection Act.


By utilizing the Insurrection Act Bush is able to federalize the National Guard (I don't know if he did this or not) and sent active duty military troops ( he did that) into the state to quell any revolt or violence (in this case they're saying that the looting and 'general lawlessness' called for immediate action to retake control and establish 'law and order') and take over.


At least this is how I understand it....