I saw on the news the MyPillow guy was at the White House holding documents containing very concerning phrases. While I don't know the context behind his holding them and I am surprised by it as I didn't picture him as a proponet of those things and would hope the goal was to dissuade from their implementation, I would hope there is an attempt to keep those things from happening because Pence and Mcconnell have both failed to remove the power to do such things, should the ability still remain to Trump, which I dunno, I'm not an expert.
EDIT: Here's the story.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/us/politics/mike-lindell-notes-west-wing.htmlI probably overreacted but the Insurrection Act reference and martial law scared me because that would be a disaster
Here is an analysis that is likely a bit dated about an amendment from 2006. It describes various theorys of executive power and an explanation on the theoretical hows and whys of the Insurrection Act. Sorry about the jumbletext, it's from a pdf and has lots of citations.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/resources/disasters/Crockett.pdfC.The Limits of the President’s Authority under the Insurrection Act Although civil disorder can create situations that will authorize the President to act pursuant to his Constitutional duty to enforce the laws, this raises important and valid concerns over the potential for abuse of this power. For example, what will limit the President from citing
Danielle Crockett 54a minor federal law in justifying the sending of troops to quell what does not appear to be an “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy”? In fact, people voiced this very concern following the passing of the original Insurrection Act.271 “It is said to be dangerous, in the hands of an ambitious and wicked President, because he may use it for the purpose of oppression or tyranny.”
One might argue that the phrase “other condition” in the amended Act is vague and has a high potential for abuse. As noted above, during the 19th century, commentators voiced similar concerns over the ability of a president to use the military to restore public order. These arguments demonstrate a fear of martial law. However, several factors limit the President’s ability to abuse his powers under the amended Act. First, in deciding whether to deploy the military, factors that the President should consider include “the extent of the disturbance which induce him to act, the evidence necessary to move him to act, [and] the persons on whom he will rely on for testimony or counsel.”280Second, while “other condition” might be vague, the Act is specific about the circumstances under which the President may Act, requiring a violation of a constitutional right or an obstruction of the execution of federal laws. Third, the pre-amendment Insurrection Act did not specify the circumstances that might cause the insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, conspiracy. The amended Act’s inclusion of “other condition” is therefore consistent with the prior version of the Act. Fourth, the amended Act requires the President to notify Congress “as soon as practicable” when the President determines that he needs to exercise 278 BOWMAN et al., supra note 7, at 10. 279 Lipton et al. supra note 8. 280 Rich, supra note 233, at 197 (quoting Frederick Bernays Wiener, A Practical Manual of Martial Law, 54 (1950)).
Danielle Crockett 56his authority under the Act. In addition, the President must remain in contact with Congress every two weeks during which the President is acting under the Act. Thus, Congress will be involved in the President’s decision to employ armed forces. In fact, Congress has previously questioned the President’s use of the Insurrection Act power and will likely continue to do so in the future. 281
EDIT2:
Holy Cow, so this is why it essentially had "Blame China/Iran" scribbled on the document:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807There are Constitutional exceptions to Posse Comitatus restrictions rooted in the President's own constitutional authority. Defense Department guidelines describe "homeland defense" as a "constitutional exception" to Posse Comitatus restriction, meaning that measures necessary to guarantee National Security from external threats are not subject to the same limitations.
Seems like more of a way to screw everything up rather than win. The initial article says they didn't take it seriously, so that's good.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 3600012 times)